Pick 'n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2711/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 385 (6 November 2015)

Pick 'n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2711/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 385 (6 November 2015)

The court found that the Commissioner ignored several material facts, including the respondent's dishonesty, lack of remorse, and attempts to mislead both the employer and the Commissioner. The respondent's managerial position and awareness of company policies heightened the seriousness of her misconduct. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 385
Parties
Applicant: Pick 'n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Lawrence Nowosenetz N.O.; Respondent: JAMAFO obo Queen Klaas
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 November 2015
Case Number
JR2711/12
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
The dismissal of Ms Queen Klaas was substantively fair but procedurally unfair. No compensation is awarded for procedural unfairness. Costs are awarded against the third respondents.
Judges
AC Basson
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Dishonesty in Employment, Remorse and Reinstatement, Review of Arbitration Award, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Dishonesty in Employment Remorse and Reinstatement Review of Arbitration Award Procedural Fairness

Source-derived case record

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pick 'n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Lawrence Nowosenetz N.O.

Respondent

JAMAFO obo Queen Klaas

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commissioner ignored material facts in finding the dismissal substantively unfair.
  2. 2 Whether the sanction of dismissal was appropriate given the respondent's dishonesty and lack of remorse.
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness was observed in the disciplinary process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Commissioner ignored several material facts, including the respondent's dishonesty, lack of remorse, and attempts to mislead both the employer and the Commissioner. The respondent's managerial position and awareness of company policies heightened the seriousness of her misconduct. The Commissioner’s reasoning was irrational in reinstating the respondent to a managerial role he deemed her unworthy of and in suggesting the employer could reconsider the sanction de novo after reinstatement. The Commissioner’s failure to consider the breakdown of trust and the context of widespread pilferage rendered the award unreasonable. The court held that the dismissal was...

Court Disposition

The dismissal of Ms Queen Klaas was substantively fair but procedurally unfair. No compensation is awarded for procedural unfairness. Costs are awarded against the third respondents.

Orders

  • The dismissal of the third respondent, Ms Queen Klaas, is declared substantively fair but procedurally unfair.
  • No order is made in respect of the finding of procedural unfairness.