Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Labour Appeal Court dismissed SITA's appeal against the Labour Court's decision upholding the CCMA arbitrator's award. Daniel de Freitas, a Senior Procurement Officer dismissed for two procurement procedure failures, was declared substantively unfairly dismissed. The court found SITA's reliance on inadmissible hearsay evidence and failed to prove deliberate misconduct, noting de Freitas was one of several officials involved in the procurement process.
Issues
- The court examined the admissibility of the forensic report and other documents presented by SITA, determining that they constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked proper authentication, which the CCMA correctly addressed.
- The court assessed whether Mr. de Freitas's failure to follow procurement procedures was deliberate or serious enough to warrant dismissal, concluding that there was no evidence of intent and that multiple SITA officials were involved in the process.
- The court evaluated whether the CCMA's decision to declare Mr. de Freitas's dismissal substantively unfair was reasonable, considering the evidence and the absence of direct testimony from SITA regarding his deliberate misconduct.
Holdings
The Labour Appeal Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Labour Court's decision to confirm the CCMA arbitrator's award. The court found that SITA's evidence relied on inadmissible hearsay, the arbitrator's award was reasonable and supported by evidence, and there was no deliberate policy violation by Mr. de Freitas. The court concluded that the disciplinary dismissal was substantively unfair and the appeal had no reasonable prospects of success.
Remedies
- SITA was ordered to pay Mr de Freitas's arrear salary in the sum of R606,896.11.
- SITA was ordered to pay Mr de Freitas's legal costs.
- The Labour Appeal Court dismissed the appeal with costs and confirmed the order of the Labour Court (court a quo) that the arbitrator's award was reasonable and supported by evidence.
- The award directed SITA to reinstate Mr de Freitas retrospectively on terms and conditions no less favourable than those which applied on the date of his dismissal (31 October 2018).
Monetary Damages
606896.11
Legal Principles
- The court found that the forensic investigator's testimony relied on inadmissible hearsay evidence, as documents were neither original nor authenticated, and no application was made for their admission under the Law of Evidence Amendment Act.
- The court applied the constitutional standard of reasonableness in reviewing the arbitrator's decision, determining whether it was one a reasonable decision-maker could reach based on the evidence.
- SITA failed to discharge its burden of proof by not presenting direct evidence against Mr de Freitas, relying instead on a forensic investigator with no personal knowledge of the events and inadmissible documents.
Precedent Name
- Rautini v PRASA
- Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd and Others
- Securitas Specialised Services (Pty) Limited v Kabelane and Others
Cited Statute
- Law of Evidence Amendment Act
- Companies Act
- Labour Relations Act
Judge Name
- Waglay
- Mlambo
- Smith
Passage Text
- [33] The function of this court ... the decision is 'one that a reasonable decision-maker would make.'
- [43] ... the evidence established that Mr de Freitas was - as was correctly found by both the second respondent and the court a quo - only one of several SITA functionaries involved in the preparation of submissions, assessment of bids and due diligence scrutiny to ensure compliance with procurement policies and procedures.
- [46] In the premise the following order is made: 1. The appeal is dismissed with costs and the order of the court a quo is confirmed.