South Africa: Durban Labour Court, Durban

You are here:
SAFLII >>
Databases >>
South Africa: Durban Labour Court, Durban >>
2007 >>
[2007] ZALCD 9
| Noteup
| LawCite
Msomi v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (D694/05) [2007] ZALCD 9 (19 March 2007)
Download original files |
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD IN DURBAN
CASE NO D694/05
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
THOKOZANI MICHAEL MSOMI APPLICANT
and
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION FIRST RESPONDENT
NHLANHLA MATHE SECOND RESPONDENT
SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICES THIRD RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
19 MARCH 2007
PILLAY D, J This is an application to review and set aside the award of the second respondent Commissioner. The applicant was charged for being absent from duty without proper authorisation. The second charge appears to be a duplication of the first, in that through his absence he prejudiced the administration, discipline and efficiency of the South African Revenue Service, the employer.
The employee admitted to being absent from duty for the time alleged, which was about seven days. He denied that he prejudiced the administration, discipline and efficiency of SARS.
The arbitrator's reasoning is based squarely on the evidence before him. It was common cause that the employee had absented himself and that when he had done so, he had informed his supervisor on two occasions that he had been "sleeping and drinking." The simple fact of employment is that an employee who does not turn up for work must expect to be disciplined and if his misconduct persists, there is a good chance that he will be dismissed. The applicant had been aware of this rule. He had transgressed it previously and had been warned. His contention is that the warning had expired and he should not have been dismissed on this occasion, but should have been given a written warning.
There was no obligation on the employer to constantly give written warnings for repeated offences, even if the old warnings have expired. There is a limit to which absenteeism can be tolerated. It is not as though the employee was not aware of the consequences of his actions. In any
event, none of the information and none of the grounds on which the award is challenged enable the Court to set aside the award on review.
In the circumstances, arbitration is final and binding and is reviewable on the limited basis set out in section 145 of the Labour Relations Act, No 66 of 1995. In the circumstances, the application for review is DISMISSED.
______________
Pillay D, J
Date Edited: 8 August 2008
Appearances:
ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT : In person
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS : No appearance
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT DURBAN
CASE NO : D694/05
DATE : 19 MARCH 2007
T M MSOMI
versus
SARS & ANOTHER
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE PILLAY
ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT : IN PERSON
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT : NOT REPRESENTED
INTERPRETER : NOT REQUIRED
EXTRACT Judgment |
REPORT ON RECORDING CLEAR
|
CONTRACTOR
Sneller Recordings (Pty) Ltd. Durban 103 Jan Hofmeyr Road Westville 3630
Tel 031 2665452 Fax 031 2665459
CERTIFICATE OF VERACITY
This is, to the best abilities of the transcriber, a true and correct transcript of the proceedings, where audible, recorded by means of a mechanical recorder in the matter:
T M MSOMI v SARS & ANOTHER
CASE NO : D694/05
COURT OF ORIGIN : DURBAN
TRANSCRIBER : S VILJOEN
DATE COMPLETED : 16 JULY 2008
NO OF CDs : 1 CD
NO OF PAGES : 10