Tshivhase-Phendla v University of Venda (JS1145/12) [2017] ZALCJHB 491 (12 October 2017)

Tshivhase-Phendla v University of Venda (JS1145/12) [2017] ZALCJHB 491 (12 October 2017)

The applicant failed to produce credible evidence that her dismissal was automatically unfair or based on unfair discrimination due to sexual harassment. Her version was inconsistent, contradictory, and not supported by contemporaneous complaints or credible witnesses. The court found that the applicant's allegations of sexual harassment were raised only after disciplinary proceedings commenced and were not substantiated by the evidence. The respondent's version, supported by documentary and witness evidence, was accepted: the applicant was dismissed for misconduct, including improper meetings with a service provider, accepting gratification, breach of policies, and non-disclosure. The...

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 491
Parties
Applicant: Thidziambi Tshivhase-Phendla; Respondent: University of Venda
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 October 2017
Case Number
JS1145/12
Procedural Posture
Unfair Dismissal Application / Judgment After Trial and Oral Argument
Outcome
Application dismissed. The dismissal of the applicant is found to be both substantively and procedurally fair.
Judges
GN Moshoana
Legal Topics
Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Sexual Harassment, Employment Equity Act, Disciplinary Procedure, Fiduciary Duty, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Automatically Unfair Dismissal Sexual Harassment Employment Equity Act Disciplinary Procedure Fiduciary Duty Procedural 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thidziambi Tshivhase-Phendla

Applicant

University of Venda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Dismissal Application / Judgment After Trial and Oral Argument

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was automatically unfairly dismissed under section 187(1)(f) of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was dismissed for a prohibited reason, namely unfair discrimination on the basis of sex.
  3. 3 Whether the dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to produce credible evidence that her dismissal was automatically unfair or based on unfair discrimination due to sexual harassment. Her version was inconsistent, contradictory, and not supported by contemporaneous complaints or credible witnesses. The court found that the applicant's allegations of sexual harassment were raised only after disciplinary proceedings commenced and were not substantiated by the evidence. The respondent's version, supported by documentary and witness evidence, was accepted: the applicant was dismissed for misconduct, including improper meetings with a service provider, accepting gratification, breach of policies, and non-disclosure. The...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. The dismissal of the applicant is found to be both substantively and procedurally fair.

Orders

  • The dismissal of the applicant is not automatically unfair.
  • The dismissal of the applicant is both substantively and procedurally fair.