MRL3702 Assignment 1 (DETAILED ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED Answers, guidelines, workings and references ..... Study the case Woolworths (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (PA12/2020) [...
MRL3702
Assignment 1 Semester 2 2024
Unique #:
Due Date: 16 August 2024
Detailed solutions, explanations, workings
and references.
+27 81 278 3372
, QUESTION 1 (4 ANSWERS PROVIDED)
Legal Opinion: Woolworths (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation,
Mediation and Arbitration and Others
Summary of the Facts
The case revolves around an incident that took place on 9 June 2018. Brian Hilton
Alexander, the third respondent, called in sick to his employer, Woolworths (Pty)
Ltd, claiming he was unwell and unable to attend work. Despite this, Alexander
attended a rugby match in Port Elizabeth, traveling an hour from his residence in
Jeffreys Bay. His manager, upon inquiry, discovered that Alexander had attended
the match on the day he claimed to be sick. Woolworths subsequently charged
Alexander with gross misconduct, alleging he abused authorized sick leave. A
disciplinary hearing found him guilty, leading to his dismissal. Alexander then
referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation,
and Arbitration (CCMA).
Issues in Dispute
The primary issue in dispute was whether Alexander's dismissal was substantively
and procedurally fair. The core questions were whether Alexander's actions
constituted gross misconduct and whether his dismissal was justified given the
circumstances.
The Court’s Decision
The Labour Appeal Court (LAC) ultimately decided in favor of Woolworths,
overturning the previous rulings of both the CCMA and the court a quo. The LAC
found that Alexander's actions were indeed dishonest, as he had called in sick and
subsequently attended a rugby match, expecting to be paid for the sick leave. The
court emphasized that such dishonesty erodes the trust between employer and
employee. Consequently, the LAC upheld Alexander's dismissal, deeming it both
substantively and procedurally fair.
Legal Opinion
The case of Woolworths (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and
Arbitration and Others is significant in its interpretation and application of principles
Varsity Cube 2024 +27 81 278 3372
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller VarsityC. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $2.73. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
