Sneller Verbatim/MS
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JR1090/01
2002-12-06
In the matter between
SHOPRITE CHECKERS (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION 1st Respondent
COMMISSIONER PHILIP COHEN 2nd Respondent
THE RETAIL AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION 3rd Respondent
4th 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