Automated Summary
Key Facts
The applicant, employed as Deputy Director General in the Gauteng Department of Education, was dismissed in 2009 for incompatibility due to a breakdown in trust and management style conflicts with colleagues. The employer initiated disciplinary proceedings after a 2008 meeting identified the applicant as the primary cause of disharmony but failed to implement agreed solutions like appointing an organisational psychologist. The Labour Court found the dismissal substantively unfair in 2014, ordering the employer to pay three months' compensation based on her salary at dismissal.
Issues
- The court examined the fairness of the disciplinary process, noting the department's one-year delay in initiating the enquiry after a 2008 meeting addressing conflicts. This delay, combined with no further complaints post-meeting, indicated the department did not view the incidents as serious enough for dismissal, contradicting the arbitrator's findings.
- The applicant challenged the arbitrator's impartiality due to her prior role in a 2007 disciplinary hearing involving the applicant. The court upheld the arbitrator's decision not to recuse, as the earlier matter was resolved by mutual agreement and did not determine the applicant's guilt, making bias claims unsustainable.
- The court evaluated whether the employer's dismissal of the applicant for incompatibility was fair, particularly considering the failure to appoint a psychologist as resolved in a 2008 meeting to address workplace disharmony. The arbitrator's conclusion that the dismissal was fair was found unreasonable, as the applicant was not mandated to arrange the psychologist and the department's delay in disciplinary action suggested insufficient evidence of irretrievable breakdown.
Holdings
- The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant compensation equivalent to three months' salary, calculated based on her earnings at the time of dismissal, as the most equitable and just remedy for the unfair dismissal.
- The court determined that the dismissal of the applicant was substantively unfair due to incompatibility and breakdown in trust, as the employer failed to address the issues through appropriate procedures and the applicant's conduct was found to cause disharmony.
Remedies
- The parties are each to pay their own costs, as the court deemed it unfair to allow costs to follow the result of the case.
- The respondent is required to pay compensation equivalent to 3 months of the applicant's salary at the time of dismissal.
- The arbitration award was reviewed and set aside, with the dismissal of the applicant found to be substantively unfair.
Monetary Damages
3.00
Legal Principles
- Section 185 of the LRA requires fair dismissal procedures. The court highlighted that even for senior managers, employers must follow fair processes, including advising the employee of allegations, providing a fair opportunity to respond, and considering remedial actions before termination.
- Incompatibility is recognized as a species of incapacity under the Labour Relations Act (LRA). The employer must prove the employee is substantially responsible for workplace disharmony and that the incompatibility constitutes a fair reason for dismissal. The court emphasized the need to address management style issues through proper procedures before resorting to dismissal.
- The court applied the judicial review test of whether a reasonable decision-maker could have reached the conclusion that the dismissal was fair. The arbitrator's decision was found unreasonable because it failed to consider the totality of circumstances and applied an irrelevant factor (non-appointment of a psychologist) to determine fairness.
Precedent Name
- Fidelity Guard Cash Management Services v CCMA and Others
- Wasteman Group v SAMWU and Others
- Woolworths (Pty) Ltd v CCMA and Others
- Edcon Ltd v Pillemer N.O and Others
- Wright v St Mary's Hospital
- Jabari v Telkom SA (Pty) Ltd
- Brereton v Bateman Industrial Corporation Ltd and Others
- Rainbow Farms (Pty) Ltd v CCMA and Others
- Sidumo and Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mine Limited and Others
Cited Statute
Labour Relations Act of 1995
Judge Name
Molahlehi J
Passage Text
- [73] ... the onus is on the employer to show that the employee charged with incompatibility is responsible substantially for the disharmony at the workplace. Furthermore, the employer must show that incompatibility as proven constitute a fair reason for the dismissal in the circumstances of a given case.
- [82] It is trite that the primary remedy in a case where the dismissal has been found to be unfair is reinstatement or re-employment, unless the provisions of section 193 of the LRA apply. ... [85] ... the most equitable and just compensation for the unfairness of the dismissal of the applicant is 3 (three) months.
- [77] In the circumstances of this case, I am of the view, that the conclusion reached by the arbitrator that the dismissal of the applicant was fair to be one which no reasonable decision maker could have reached. The issue that then remains is whether I should remit the matter to the First Respondent for consideration afresh or should substitute that decision.