|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 2015 |
|
|
|
9 October 2015 |
| August 2015 |
|
|
Labour Court reviews jurisdictional dismissal findings de novo and upholds a finding of verbal resignation.
Labour law – CCMA jurisdiction – whether a dismissal occurred – review under s145 LRA – jurisdictional findings reviewed de novo on right-or-wrong basis (not Sidumo reasonableness). Resignation – verbal or by conduct – requires clear, unambiguous and final intention to terminate; employer acceptance (if required) can be evidenced by contemporaneous acts (e.g. telegram, HR processing). Onus – employee must prove dismissal under s192(1).
|
28 August 2015 |
|
Applicant's dismissal held not automatically unfair because her alleged disclosure lacked sufficient factual basis to be protected under the PDA.
Protected Disclosures Act – requirements for protected disclosure (s 1, s 9) – reasonable belief must be factually supported – expressions of opinion or unsubstantiated allegations not protected – alleged re-grading and employment equity reporting did not demonstrate failure to comply with legal obligations – dismissal not automatically unfair where disclosure not protected.
|
4 August 2015 |
| July 2015 |
|
|
Commissioner ignored material facts; deliberate, repeated insubordination amounted to gross misconduct and dismissal was fair.
Labour law – penalty review – sanction – failure to consider material facts and totality of circumstances (Sidumo/Mofokeng) – gross insubordination – dismissal fair as first offence.
|
31 July 2015 |
|
An administrator under section 139 may suspend senior managers; substantial compliance with Regulation 6 defeats urgent interdiction.
Local government — Section 139(1)(c) intervention — Administrator steps into municipal council's role — Authority to suspend senior managers; Labour law — Precautionary suspension of senior managers — Regulation 6 procedural requirements — Substantial compliance suffices; Urgent relief — Clear right and exceptional circumstances required for interdict.
|
7 July 2015 |
| March 2015 |
|
|
Leave to appeal refused where no reasonable prospects exist that a higher court would differ, including on joint possession of firearms.
Criminal procedure — Application for leave to appeal — Whether there are reasonable prospects of another court arriving at a different conclusion — Consideration of authorities on joint possession of firearms.
|
23 March 2015 |