Ithala Development Finance Corporation Ltd v Zulu and Others (D615/2020) [2023] ZALCD 13 (24 July 2023)
Court
Labour Court Durban
Case number
D615/2020
Judge
GN Moshoana
The Labour Court reviewed and set aside a CCMA award that had rejected hearsay evidence without applying section 3 of the Evidence Act, and upheld the dismissal.
Legobate v Quest Flexible Staffing and Others (JR221/12) [2013] ZALCJHB 167; (2014) 35 ILJ 738 (LC); [2013] 12 BLLR 1229 (LC) (30 July 2013)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Case number
JR221/12
Judge
Molahlehi
The court found that the Commissioner failed to properly consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the applicant's dismissal. The applicant posted comments on the intranet in response to an open invitation from the client to express views on mutual respect, without any prescribed parameters or warnings regarding negative feedback. The invitation did not restrict the format or content of responses, nor did it caution employees about possible disciplinary consequences. The court held that the Commissioner should have recognised that the applicant's conduct, while critical of manage…
Motloung v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1407/02) [2002] ZALCJHB 4 (4 December 2002)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Case number
JR1407/02
Judge
E. Revelas
The Labour Court set aside a CCMA commissioner’s refusal of condonation, finding that relevant facts, including prospects of success and delay, were not properly considered.
Corobrick (Pty) Ltd t/a Brick and Tile v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (D26/2001) [2002] ZALC 44; [2002] 8 BLLR 738 (LC) (6 May 2002)
Court
Labour Court
Case number
D26/2001
Judge
Pillay D
The Labour Court found that the Commissioner misconceived her duties by failing to apply the applicant's disciplinary code and procedures, disregarding the seriousness of the misconduct, and misapplying the significance of long service. The Commissioner ignored aggravating factors and failed to draw appropriate inferences from the third respondent's dishonesty and refusal to carry out a lawful and reasonable instruction. The award was irrational and unjustifiable on the material before her, and the Commissioner acted ultra vires. The application for review was granted, setting aside the Commi…