Intraspeed SA (Pty) Ltd v Boyce NO and Others (JR1847/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 294 (29 July 2016)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that another court may reasonably come to a different conclusion. The grounds for leave to appeal did not meet the statutory test, as the facts and disciplinary process were clear, and the sanction was appropriate given the third respondent's prior warning and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] ZALCJHB 294
- Parties
- Applicant: Intraspeed SA (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: T Boyce N.O and Others
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 29 July 2016
- Case Number
- JR1847/14
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
- Judges
- Moshoana
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Gross Misconduct, Abusive Language, Disciplinary Procedure
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Intraspeed SA (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
T Boyce N.O and Others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has met the test for leave to appeal.
- 2 Whether another court may reasonably come to a different conclusion regarding the dismissal for gross misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that another court may reasonably come to a different conclusion. The grounds for leave to appeal did not meet the statutory test, as the facts and disciplinary process were clear, and the sanction was appropriate given the third respondent's prior warning and admission of guilt. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was refused.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is refused.
- The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of this application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
39 paragraphs
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Not Reportable
Not of interest to other Judges
case no: JR 1847/14
In the matter between:
INTRASPEED SA (PTY) LTD
Applicant
and
T BOYCE N.O AND OTHERS
Respondents
Heard: 28 July 2016
Delivered: 29 July 2016 (In Chambers)
Summary: The applicant for leave to appeal must demonstrate that another court may reasonably come to a different outcome. The test for leave
to appeal not met. The application is dismissed with costs.
MOSHOANA, AJ
Introduction
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal. The applicant contends that another court may come to a different conclusion.
Background facts
[2] On or about 28 November 2013, the third respondent attended the applicant’s Christmas party. After consuming alcohol, approximately 8 340ml bottles of beers, he left the party to his home. Whilst at home, he consumed another bottle of beer before he could go through emails on his phone. He came across an email from the branch manager of Cape Town Office, Paul Thomas. The email was sent at or about 13h47 that day. Therein, Thomas asked: ‘Why was this entry not cleared via GR as registered and instructed?’
Annoyed by the query, he asked his wife to send an email to Thomas, which read: ‘Fuck You Thank You’. The following day, 29 November 2013 at or around 08:01, Thomas forwarded the email to Tony Van Aswegen and Willie De Lange. He stated the following: ‘LOL…I had to laugh when I got this mail’. Shortly thereafter, Tony Van Aswegen wrote an email to both Thomas and De Lange and said: ‘Hi Willie, I will call you later to discuss this, this is unacceptable’.
[3] On 2 December 2013, the third respondent was issued with a notification of a disciplinary hearing to be held on 3 December 2013.
He was charged with gross misconduct in using abusive language to a fellow manager. On 3 December 2013, he pleaded guilty. The
Chairperson, De Lange said that due to the fact that the third respondent was already on a final written warning, he had no choice
but to dismiss him from the applicant.
Evaluation
[4] The test in applications of this nature is simple. It entails whether another court may reasonably arrive at a different conclusion. Having considered the grounds upon which this application is predicated, I am of a firm view that the test has not been met.
Order
[5] In the results, I make the following order:
1. The application for leave to appeal is refused.
2. The applicant to pay the costs of this application.
_______________________
Moshoana, AJ,
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
APPEARANCES
For the Applicant: C Haralambous of Cox Yeats Attorneys, Johannesburg.
For the Respondents: Advocate Greyling
Instructed by:
Lingenfelder Baloyi Incorporated, Pretoria