, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE TO ANSWER YOUR ASSIGNMENT
Please note that the author of this document will not responsibility for any plagiarizing you
commit.
Study the case Woolworths (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
and Others (PA12/2020) [2021] ZALAC 49; [2022] 3 BLLR 296 (LAC); (2022) 43 ILJ 839 (LAC))
and write a two-page legal opinion about the case. Your legal opinion must have the following -
Summary of the facts of the case
Issue(s) in dispute in the case
The court’s decision
At the end provide a well-supported legal opinion which should cover the importance of the
case (importance of the case (this is important as it carries more marks).
Summary of the Facts of the Case
The case Woolworths (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and
Others revolves around an incident that occurred on 9 June 2018. The third respondent, Mr. Brian
Hilton Alexander, who was employed by Woolworths (Pty) Ltd, informed his employer that he was
ill and would not be able to attend work. Despite his claim of illness, Mr. Alexander attended a rugby
match in Port Elizabeth, which involved traveling a considerable distance from his residence in
Jeffreys Bay. His manager, upon his return to work, inquired about his whereabouts during his
absence, and Mr. Alexander admitted to attending the rugby match despite claiming sick leave. This
led to an internal investigation and a subsequent disciplinary hearing where Mr. Alexander was
charged with gross misconduct for abusing sick leave. Following the disciplinary process, he was
dismissed from his employment.
Issues in Dispute in the Case
The central issue in dispute was whether the dismissal of Mr. Alexander for abusing sick leave and
attending a rugby match instead of reporting to work was substantively and procedurally fair. The
secondary issue was whether there was an existing policy that clearly prohibited such conduct and
whether Mr. Alexander’s actions amounted to dishonesty that justified termination of employment.
The Court’s Decision
The initial arbitration by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA)
found Mr. Alexander's dismissal to be both substantively and procedurally unfair, ordering his
reinstatement. The Labour Court, upon review, upheld the finding of substantive unfairness but
noted procedural fairness. However, on appeal, the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) overturned the
decisions of both the CCMA and the Labour Court. The LAC found that Mr. Alexander's actions
were dishonest and justified dismissal. The LAC emphasized that the employment relationship's trust
had been irreparably damaged due to Mr. Alexander's dishonesty and previous disciplinary issues.
Thus, the LAC upheld the dismissal as both substantively and procedurally fair, setting aside the
orders of the lower courts.
