Verity v University of the Witswatersrand (JS319/2006) [2009] ZALC 37; [2009] 8 BLLR 838 (LC) (17 April 2009)

Verity v University of the Witswatersrand (JS319/2006) [2009] ZALC 37; [2009] 8 BLLR 838 (LC) (17 April 2009)

The Court found that the employment contract permitted the head of department to determine starting and finishing times. Evidence established that, following failed negotiations for an 8h00 start, the applicant agreed in May 2005 to commence work at 8h15. The applicant's subsequent refusal and persistent lateness constituted misconduct. As an agreement on new working hours was reached, the applicant failed to prove that her dismissal was for refusing a unilateral change. The automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 187(1)(c) was dismissed. The Court declined to exercise discretion to determine the substantive fairness of the dismissal for poor timekeeping, directing that such...

Citation
[2009] ZALC 37
Parties
Applicant: Carol Anne Verity; Respondent: The University of the Witwatersrand
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 April 2009
Case Number
JS319/2006
Procedural Posture
Automatic Unfair Dismissal / Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed. The applicant's dismissal was not automatically unfair under section 187(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act.
Judges
Francis
Legal Topics
Automatic Unfair Dismissal, Section 187 Lra, Contractual Variation, Poor Timekeeping, Disciplinary Procedure
Labour Law Automatic Unfair Dismissal Section 187 Lra Contractual Variation Poor Timekeeping Disciplinary Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carol Anne Verity

Applicant

The University of the Witwatersrand

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Automatic Unfair Dismissal / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's dismissal was automatically unfair under section 187(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent unilaterally changed the applicant's conditions of employment regarding starting times.
  3. 3 Whether an agreement was concluded regarding new working hours.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the employment contract permitted the head of department to determine starting and finishing times. Evidence established that, following failed negotiations for an 8h00 start, the applicant agreed in May 2005 to commence work at 8h15. The applicant's subsequent refusal and persistent lateness constituted misconduct. As an agreement on new working hours was reached, the applicant failed to prove that her dismissal was for refusing a unilateral change. The automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 187(1)(c) was dismissed. The Court declined to exercise discretion to determine the substantive fairness of the dismissal for poor timekeeping, directing that such...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. The applicant's dismissal was not automatically unfair under section 187(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act.

Orders

  • The applicant's dismissal by the respondent was not automatically unfair in terms of section 187(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act.
  • The referral is dismissed.