Woolwoths (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (LAC) [2011] ZALAC 15; [2011] 10 BLLR 963 (LAC); (2011) 32 ILJ 2455 (LAC) (26 July 2011)

Woolwoths (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (LAC) [2011] ZALAC 15; [2011] 10 BLLR 963 (LAC); (2011) 32 ILJ 2455 (LAC) (26 July 2011)

The Labour Appeal Court found that the Labour Court failed to address the Commissioner’s factual findings on guilt and focused only on sanction, constituting a gross irregularity. Upon review of the evidence, including the DVD footage, the Court held that the employee’s conduct on two consecutive days amounted to concealment of company property with dishonest intent. The explanations provided by the employee were improbable and fabricated. The Commissioner’s award was unreasonable and could not be sustained under section 145 of the LRA. The employee was guilty of gross misconduct involving dishonesty, and dismissal was justified despite her long service and clean record. The trust...

Citation
[2011] ZALAC 15
Parties
Appellant: Woolworths (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner Kaushilla Gunase; Respondent: C Masoleng
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 July 2011
Case Number
JA 30/10
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment Dismissing Review of CCMA Arbitration Award
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Arbitration award set aside. Dismissal found both procedurally and substantively fair.
Judges
Ndlovu JA, Davis JA, Sandi AJA
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Gross Misconduct, Dishonesty in Employment, Review of Arbitration Award, Evidentiary Burden, Sanction for Misconduct
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Gross Misconduct Dishonesty in Employment Review of Arbitration Award Evidentiary Burden Sanction for 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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Woolworths (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner Kaushilla Gunase

Respondent

C Masoleng

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment Dismissing Review of CCMA Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Court erred by failing to address the Commissioner’s factual findings on guilt, focusing only on sanction.
  2. 2 Whether the CCMA Commissioner’s arbitration award was reasonable in finding the dismissal substantively unfair.
  3. 3 Whether the employee’s conduct constituted gross misconduct and dishonesty justifying dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court found that the Labour Court failed to address the Commissioner’s factual findings on guilt and focused only on sanction, constituting a gross irregularity. Upon review of the evidence, including the DVD footage, the Court held that the employee’s conduct on two consecutive days amounted to concealment of company property with dishonest intent. The explanations provided by the employee were improbable and fabricated. The Commissioner’s award was unreasonable and could not be sustained under section 145 of the LRA. The employee was guilty of gross misconduct involving dishonesty, and dismissal was justified despite her long service and clean record. The trust...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Arbitration award set aside. Dismissal found both procedurally and substantively fair.

Orders

  • The order condoning the third respondent’s late filing of the answering affidavit is confirmed.
  • The order dismissing the appellant’s review application with costs is set aside and substituted with: 'The arbitration award issued by the second respondent on 29 August 2005 under Case No. GAJB 4629-05 is hereby reviewed and set aside, and substituted with the following order: The dismissal of the applicant was...