Automated Summary
Key Facts
The case involves the dismissal of 44 scaffolding supervisors employed by Kaefer Energy Projects. The employees were dismissed for participating in unprotected strikes on 18 May 2017 and 12 June 2017, and for unauthorized absence on 4 July 2017. The court found their strikes and absences were in pursuit of wage increases and grievances over shift schedules, but deemed the actions unprotected and the dismissals procedurally and substantively fair. Medical certificates submitted for the 4 July absence were ruled inadmissible hearsay due to lack of supporting evidence from the issuing doctors.
Issues
- The court examined the fairness of the disciplinary process, including adherence to the SSA's grievance procedures, and whether the dismissal for misconduct (unprotected strikes and unauthorized absence) was proportionate. It concluded the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively fair, citing the employees' deliberate actions undermining operations and trust in the employment relationship.
- The court determined whether the applicant employees' work stoppages on 18 May and 12 June 2017 qualified as unprotected strikes under section 213 of the Labour Relations Act (LRA). It also assessed if the respondent's dismissal of the applicants for this misconduct was substantively fair, considering the employees' failure to follow grievance procedures and the impact on operations.
- The court evaluated whether medical certificates submitted by 43 of 44 supervisors to justify their absence on 4 July 2017 were admissible as evidence. It ruled that the certificates constituted inadmissible hearsay under section 3 of the Evidence Act, as they lacked supporting affidavits from the issuing doctors to establish credibility.
Holdings
- The court ruled that medical certificates submitted by the employees to justify their absence on 4 July 2017 constituted inadmissible hearsay evidence. Under section 3 of the Evidence Act, the certificates lacked supporting affidavits from the issuing doctors, rendering them insufficient to establish the employees' claimed illnesses. This invalidated the employees' defense to the unauthorized absence charge.
- The court held that the dismissal of the applicant employees was both procedurally and substantively fair. The employees were found guilty of participating in an unprotected strike (12 June 2017 work stoppage), failure to follow the SSA grievance procedure, unauthorized absence from work (4 July 2017), and breach of good faith. The court emphasized that the employees' conduct, including a mass absence of 43 supervisors, undermined trust and operations, justifying summary dismissal.
- The court dismissed the applicants' claim for reinstatement or compensation and ordered no costs. It noted the parties' ongoing collective bargaining relationship and the lack of legal requirement for costs to follow the judgment in such circumstances.
Remedies
- The applicants' request for relief, including retrospective reinstatement or just and equitable compensation, was dismissed by the court.
- The court determined that the dismissal of the applicant employees was procedurally and substantively fair, rejecting their claim for reinstatement or compensation.
- The court explicitly stated there would be no order for costs, citing fairness and the parties' ongoing collective bargaining relationship.
Legal Principles
- The court determined that medical certificates constitute inadmissible hearsay evidence under section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act. The certificates were deemed inadmissible due to the lack of affidavits from the issuing doctors, and the court emphasized the need for medical professionals to provide expert evidence rather than relying on layperson attestations. This aligns with the precedent in Mgobhozi v Naidoo NO & Others, where the Labour Appeal Court highlighted the importance of medical experts testifying to validate certificates.
- The court found the applicant employees' failure to follow the Site-Specific Agreement (SSA) grievance procedures and their unauthorised absence from work constituted a breach of the duty of good faith. The employees' conduct, including the unprotected strike and mass absenteeism, undermined trust and operational integrity, leading to the conclusion that dismissal was substantively fair under section 68(5) of the Labour Relations Act.
Precedent Name
- National Union of Mineworkers obo Employees and Others v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others
- Autozone v Dispute Resolution Centre of Motor Industry & others
- Mgobhozi v Naidoo NO & Others
- National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) v CBI Electric African Cables
- Transport & Allied Workers Union of SA on behalf of Ngedle & others v Unitrans Fuel & Chemical Co (Pty) Ltd
Cited Statute
- Labour Relations Act
- Law of Evidence Amendment Act
Judge Name
P Nkutha-Nkontwana
Passage Text
- In all the circumstances, I find that the dismissal of the applicant employees is procedurally and substantively fair.
- the applicant employees' wilful conduct against the interests of Kaefer seriously jeopardised its operations and reputation.
- The absence of affidavits from the doctors means that the court is deprived of any elaboration of the widely and vaguely stated symptoms attributed to the appellant.