About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2002
>>
[2002] ZALCJHB 7
|
|
Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR1090/01) [2002] ZALCJHB 7 (6 December 2002)
[COMMENT1]
Sneller
Verbatim/MS
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN
CASE
NO: JR1090/01
DATE:
2002-12-06
In the matter between
SHOPRITE CHECKERS
(PTY)
LTD Applicant
and
THE COMMISSION FOR
CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION AND
ARBITRATION
1
st
Respondent
COMMISSIONER PHILIP
COHEN
2
nd
Respondent
THE RETAIL AND ALLIED
WORKERS UNION
3
rd
Respondent
TJIKANA
D 4
th
Respondent
J U
D G M E N T
REVELAS,
J
:
1. This is an application
in terms of
section 145
of the
Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
as
amended. The applicant does business in the retail sector sells
groceries and prepares food. There is a deli section
on the
premises of this particular store of the applicant. The fourth
respondent was an employee of the applicant until her
services were
terminated for allegedly eating chicken in the deli section.
The applicant based its observation on video footage
where the fourth
respondent was seen eating a chicken leg and a bit of rice.
2. At this stage it is
not important to decide whether or not she ate giblets or which is a
leg in question. What is common cause
is that she indulged in eating
(or tasting) food. The question is whether she breach a disciplinary
rule and whether dismissal
was the appropriate sanction. The
Commissioner who arbitrated the dispute relating to the alleged
unfair dismissal of the
fourth respondent, made certain findings
which do not seem to be rationally connected to the facts before him
at the arbitration
hearing.
3. Unfortunately there is
no record in this matter. In certain circumstances an
application for review should fail, but based
on certain statements
made by the Arbitrator, it is my view that this matter should be
referred back to the Commission for Conciliation
Mediation and
Arbitration to be arbitrated by a different Arbitrator. It is
common cause in this matter that the Commission
lost the tapes of the
proceedings and that no record could be transcribed.
4. In the circumstances I
make the following order:
1. The award
of the second respondent is set aside and the matter is referred back
to the Commission for Conciliation
Mediation and Arbitration to be
arbitrated before a different Commissioner.
2. There is
no order as to costs.
_________________
E.
Revelas
[COMMENT1]
BEGIN
DEUR 'N "HEADER" TE MAAK