Sun Couriers (Pty) Ltd CCMA and Others (P255/01) [2001] ZALC 216; (2002) 23 ILJ 189 (LC) (28 November 2001)

Sun Couriers (Pty) Ltd CCMA and Others (P255/01) [2001] ZALC 216; (2002) 23 ILJ 189 (LC) (28 November 2001)

The court found that the Commissioner misconstrued the distinction between incapacity and misconduct, applying standards of blameworthiness inappropriate to a dismissal for poor performance. The evidence showed that the employer set a reasonable performance standard, provided counselling, and followed fair procedures. The Commissioner’s award was not justifiable on the facts or law, as it relied on irrelevant considerations of culpability. The guidelines for dismissal for poor work performance were adequately observed, and the award could not stand under the applicable review principles.

Citation
[2001] ZALC 216
Parties
Applicant: Sun Couriers (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Le Roux, F N O; Respondent: Robinson, A N
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 2001
Case Number
P255/01
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Arbitration award set aside; dispute referred for fresh arbitration before a different Commissioner; costs awarded against Robinson.
Judges
B M Jammy
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Poor Performance, Arbitration Review, Code of Good Practice, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness
Labour Law Dismissal for Poor Performance Arbitration Review Code of Good Practice Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sun Couriers (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

Le Roux, F N O

Respondent

Robinson, A N

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award finding Robinson's dismissal substantively unfair was justifiable in law and fact.
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioner confused the legal standards applicable to dismissals for incapacity and misconduct.
  3. 3 Whether the performance standard set by the employer was reasonable and properly applied.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Commissioner misconstrued the distinction between incapacity and misconduct, applying standards of blameworthiness inappropriate to a dismissal for poor performance. The evidence showed that the employer set a reasonable performance standard, provided counselling, and followed fair procedures. The Commissioner’s award was not justifiable on the facts or law, as it relied on irrelevant considerations of culpability. The guidelines for dismissal for poor work performance were adequately observed, and the award could not stand under the applicable review principles.

Court Disposition

Arbitration award set aside; dispute referred for fresh arbitration before a different Commissioner; costs awarded against Robinson.

Orders

  • The arbitration award dated 16 February 2001 issued by the Second Respondent under the First Respondent’s Case No. EC18574 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The dispute between the Applicant and the Third Respondent is referred back to the First Respondent to be arbitrated de novo before a Commissioner other than the Second Respondent.