About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Durban Labour Court, Durban
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Durban Labour Court, Durban
>>
2007
>>
[2007] ZALCD 9
|
|
Msomi v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (D694/05) [2007] ZALCD 9 (19 March 2007)
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD
IN DURBAN
CASE
NO
D694/05
IN
THE MATTER BETWEEN:
THOKOZANI
MICHAEL
MSOMI
APPLICANT
and
COMMISSION
FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION
AND ARBITRATION
FIRST RESPONDENT
NHLANHLA
MATHE
SECOND RESPONDENT
SOUTH
AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICES
THIRD RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
19
MARCH 2007
PILLAY
D, J
This is an
application to review and set aside the award of the second
respondent Commissioner. The applicant was charged
for being
absent from duty without proper authorisation. The second
charge appears to be a duplication of the first, in that
through his
absence he prejudiced the administration, discipline and efficiency
of the South African Revenue Service, the employer.
The
employee admitted to being absent from duty for the time alleged,
which was about seven days. He denied that he prejudiced
the
administration, discipline and efficiency of SARS.
The
arbitrator's reasoning is based squarely on the evidence before him.
It was common cause that the employee had absented
himself and that
when he had done so, he had informed his supervisor on two occasions
that he had been "sleeping and drinking."
The simple
fact of employment is that an employee who does not turn up for work
must expect to be disciplined and if his misconduct
persists, there
is a good chance that he will be dismissed. The applicant had
been aware of this rule. He had transgressed
it previously and
had been warned. His contention is that the warning had expired
and he should not have been dismissed on
this occasion, but should
have been given a written warning.
There
was no obligation on the employer to constantly give written warnings
for repeated offences, even if the old warnings have
expired.
There is a limit to which absenteeism can be tolerated. It is
not as though the employee was not aware of
the consequences of his
actions. In any
event,
none of the information and none of the grounds on which the award is
challenged enable the Court to set aside the award
on review.
In
the circumstances, arbitration is final and binding and is reviewable
on the limited basis set out in
section 145
of the
Labour Relations
Act, No 66 of 1995
. In the circumstances, the application for
review is
DISMISSED
.
______________
Pillay
D, J
Date
Edited: 8 August 2008
Appearances:
ON
BEHALF OF APPLICANT :
In person
ON
BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS :
No appearance
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD
AT DURBAN
CASE
NO
:
D694/05
DATE
:
19 MARCH 2007
T
M MSOMI
versus
SARS
& ANOTHER
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE PILLAY
ON
BEHALF OF APPLICANT
:
IN PERSON
ON
BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
:
NOT REPRESENTED
INTERPRETER
:
NOT REQUIRED
EXTRACT
Judgment
REPORT ON
RECORDING
CLEAR
CONTRACTOR
Sneller
Recordings
(Pty) Ltd. Durban
–
103 Jan Hofmeyr Road
–
Westville 3630
Tel
031 2665452
–
Fax
031 2665459
CERTIFICATE
OF VERACITY
This
is, to the best abilities of the transcriber, a true and correct
transcript of the proceedings,
where audible
, recorded by
means of a mechanical recorder in the matter:
T
M MSOMI v SARS & ANOTHER
CASE
NO
:
D694/05
COURT
OF ORIGIN
:
DURBAN
TRANSCRIBER
:
S VILJOEN
DATE
COMPLETED
:
16 JULY 2008
NO
OF CDs
:
1 CD
NO
OF PAGES
:
10