Article by Roodepoort Attorney: LEON WOLLNIK
The Labour Court in Johannesburg recently dealt with a dispute arising from the dismissal of a financial manager at the National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications. The employee had written a private note to her attorney during a disciplinary hearing, referring to her CFO in derogatory terms.
Although the note was never intended for her employer, it was seen and used as the basis for charges of insolence, leading to her dismissal.
At arbitration, the commissioner ruled that the note was privileged communication and inadmissible, finding the dismissal substantively unfair and awarding compensation.
The employer sought review, arguing that the arbitrator had erred by relying solely on documents without properly tested evidence.
The Labour Court agreed, stressing that arbitration cannot proceed without oral evidence unless a properly framed stated case is submitted.
By failing to ensure a fair trial of the issues—particularly regarding how the note was admitted and whether privilege had been waived—the arbitrator’s award was set aside. The matter was remitted to the CCMA for a fresh hearing before a different commissioner, with no order as to costs.
The ruling underscores the importance of procedural rigour in dismissal disputes, reinforcing that parties cannot bypass oral evidence without risking review and reversal.
For more information, please visit our website wollnikattorneys.co.za, email us at Send email or give us a call on 011 793-4367 or Business WhatsApp: 082 773 1053
