South Africa Case Law

Supreme Poultry (Pty) Ltd v Radiboke and Others (C536/2020)

Supreme Poultry (Pty) Ltd v Radiboke and Others (C536/2020) [2023] ZALCCT 56; (2024) 45 ILJ 339 (LC) (11 October 2023)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C536/2020

Judge

Lagrange

The court found that the arbitrator misdirected herself by basing her award on inconsistency, an issue expressly abandoned by the employee during arbitration. The arbitrator's finding of procedural unfairness was not supported by evidence of material prejudice, as the employee was given time to prepare and did not request a postponement. The finding of dishonesty was reasonable on the evidence, as the employee could not account for the significant discrepancy between authorised and claimed overtime. The arbitrator's conclusion that the dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair was u…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Condonation Of Late Filing
• Procedural Fairness
• Substantive Fairness
• Dishonesty In Employment
• Inconsistent Treatment

Visser v National Commissioner South African Police Service and Others (D18/20)

Visser v National Commissioner South African Police Service and Others (D18/20) [2022] ZALCD 30 (27 July 2022)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D18/20

Judge

Van Niekerk

Labour Court review upheld after finding an arbitrator ignored inconsistent treatment evidence in an acting-allowance dispute and wrongly rejected a demotion claim.

• Unfair Labour Practice
• Demotion
• Acting Allowance
• Collective Agreement
• Benefits
• Inconsistent Treatment

Rainbow Farms (Pty) Ltd v NUFWBSAW obo Jordaan and Others (C667/2016)

Rainbow Farms (Pty) Ltd v NUFWBSAW obo Jordaan and Others (C667/2016) [2018] ZALCCT 42 (5 December 2018)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C667/2016

Judge

Steenkamp

Labour Court review dismissed after finding the commissioner’s award on alleged dishonesty and reinstatement was reasonable.

• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Dishonesty In The Workplace
• Reinstatement
• Onus Of Proof
• Inconsistent Treatment
• Costs Award

Department of Agriculture, Limpopo Province v Managa and Others (JR3015/06)

Department of Agriculture, Limpopo Province v Managa and Others (JR3015/06) [2017] ZALCJHB 144 (5 May 2017)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR3015/06

Judge

Lagrange

The court found that the arbitrator’s conclusion of procedural unfairness was unsustainable, as the confession was not improperly used in the disciplinary enquiry and the first respondent was not denied an opportunity to challenge its admissibility. The arbitrator failed to apply the principles of procedural fairness as set out in the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal. The finding of substantive unfairness was upheld only because the applicant did not successfully challenge it on review. However, the arbitrator failed to consider the implications of the first respondent’s prior misappropriatio…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Procedural Fairness
• Substantive Fairness
• Reinstatement
• Compensation
• Inconsistent Treatment

Ndlovu v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1855/14)

Ndlovu v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1855/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 133 (5 April 2016)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1855/14

Judge

Lagrange

The Labour Court set aside an arbitration award upholding dismissal, finding inconsistent treatment because the employer did not discipline another involved manager.

• Inconsistent Treatment
• Substantive Fairness
• Remedy Of Compensation
• Breach Of Trust
• Disciplinary Procedure
• Inconsistent-treatment

Vaalriver Motors CC v Dispute Resolution Centre and Others (JR3063/2010)

Vaalriver Motors CC v Dispute Resolution Centre and Others (JR3063/2010) [2014] ZALCJHB 48 (25 February 2014)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR3063/2010

Judge

Lagrange

The court found that the arbitrator's conclusion of procedural unfairness was not supported by evidence, as the issue of bias was neither raised nor substantiated during the disciplinary enquiry. The arbitrator failed to consider the context of the business and improperly introduced the issue of bias. On substantive fairness, the arbitrator did not rationally distinguish between the responsibilities of the cashier and the petrol attendant, leading to an unreasonable finding of inconsistent treatment. The evidence supported the employer's version that the third respondent confessed to theft an…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Procedural Fairness
• Substantive Fairness
• Inconsistent Treatment
• Reasonableness Review
• Confession Evidence