Woolworths (Pty) Ltd v Commission For Conciliation, Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR1611/11) [2014] ZALCJHB 176 (20 May 2014)

Woolworths (Pty) Ltd v Commission For Conciliation, Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR1611/11) [2014] ZALCJHB 176 (20 May 2014)

Although the Commissioner misapprehended aspects of the evidence regarding the employee's negligence, the ultimate finding that the dismissal was unfair due to the harshness of the sanction falls within the band of reasonableness required by law. The Commissioner’s decision was one that a reasonable decision maker could reach, especially in circumstances where no dishonesty was shown and previous similar incidents did not attract formal sanctions. The review application is therefore dismissed as the award is not unreasonable in law.

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 176
Parties
Applicant: Woolworths (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner J D Sello N.; Respondent: SACCAWU; Respondent: K Mohlafuno
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 May 2014
Case Number
JR1611/11
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review Application
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Snider AJ
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Negligence, Sanction, Misconduct
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Negligence Sanction Misconduct

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Woolworths (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner J D Sello N.

Respondent

SACCAWU

Respondent

K Mohlafuno

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award issued by the Commissioner should be set aside on review.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the employee for a till over was substantively unfair.
  3. 3 Whether the Commissioner misapprehended the evidence regarding negligence and sanction.

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Commissioner misapprehended aspects of the evidence regarding the employee's negligence, the ultimate finding that the dismissal was unfair due to the harshness of the sanction falls within the band of reasonableness required by law. The Commissioner’s decision was one that a reasonable decision maker could reach, especially in circumstances where no dishonesty was shown and previous similar incidents did not attract formal sanctions. The review application is therefore dismissed as the award is not unreasonable in law.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.