BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (the “CCMA”) recently handed down judgment in terms of a section 191(5)(a)(i) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (the “Act”). The question of law before the Arbitrator of the Court was whether or not the dismissal of the Applicants was substantively fair.  
BACKGROUND Allan Long (“the Applicant”) was previously employed by South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd (“the First Respondent”) as its district manager for the Border District. He was responsible for legal compliance in respect of the First Respondent’s operations in the Border District, including the requirements pertaining to a fleet of vehicles. On 10 May 2013,
BACKGROUND Marthie Bester (“the Applicant”) was initially permanently employed as the national marketing director of Selfmed (“the Respondent”). This was later converted to a fixed term contract expiring on 31 December 2014. Upon expiry of her contract, the Applicant alleged that she was owed 218.74 days’ accrued leave. However, the Respondent contended that she was
SUMMARY This matter concerns a review application brought about by Moeti John Lesedi (the “Applicant”) who is reviewing an arbitration order made by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (the “CCMA”), who is the First Respondent in the matter and Commissioner Timothy Boyce (the “Second Respondent”). The Applicant’s review application concerns Dischem Pharmacies (the
SUMMARY In 2006 the Twincare International (Pty) Ltd (“Twincare 1”) entered into an employment agreement with Deborah Nel (“Nel”), containing confidentiality and restraint of trade clauses. As an employee of Twincare, Nel was involved in the education of staff members of Twincare’s clients regarding the various beauty and skincare products that Twincare produces. In 2013,
SUMMARY – Background to Review This is an opposed review application of an award in which the arbitrator found that the third respondent, Mr I Juries (‘Juries’), was dismissed by the applicant (‘Unitrans’) unfairly because he did not deliberately falsify payroll information which caused a shop steward, Mr G Coetzee (‘Coetzee’), to receive additional remuneration
SUMMARY This matter concerns the First Respondent’s award finding that the dismissal of the Fourth Respondent was substantively unfair, ordering his reinstatement. The Applicant sought an order setting aside the award, while the Fourth Respondent applied for the award to be made an order of court. The Fourth Respondent’s dismissal arose from his failure to
BACKGROUND Cornelius Vermaak and Marline Vermaak (“the Vermaaks”) were employed by Paledi Superspar and Paledi Tops (“Paledi”), respectively, as managers of the businesses. Paledi obtained trading stock on credit from the Spar Group Ltd (“Spar”). As security for their acknowledged indebtedness to Spar, on 4 December 2013, two general notarial covering bonds were registered over
BACKGROUND Mr Bester, who was represented by the South African Equity Workers Association (“SAEWA”), was an employee of Rustenburg Platinum Mine (“Applicant”).  In April 2013, Mr Bester attempted to raise a parking issue with the Applicant’s Chief Safety Officer (“Mr Sedumedi”). His attempts were ignored which led to Mr Bester allegedly interrupting a safety meeting,
SUMMARY The Applicant, South African Airways (SOC) Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “SAA”), the employer of the Third Respondent Matebogo Thipe (hereinafter referred to as “Thipe”) sought a review of an arbitration award granted by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (the “CCMA”) in favour of Thipe in 2014. Thipe had been dismissed by