1 / 8

SASLAW

SASLAW. Port Elizabeth. Anton Myburgh 18 November 2010. Foschini Group v Maidi. Dismissal for failing to control shrinkage: Foschini Group v Maidi [2010] 7 BLLR 689 (LAC). Collective misconduct, but unable to pinpoint perpetrators: Inference of individual guilt. Common purpose.

rasul
Download Presentation

SASLAW

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SASLAW Port Elizabeth Anton Myburgh 18 November 2010

  2. Foschini Group v Maidi Dismissal for failing to control shrinkage: • Foschini Group v Maidi [2010] 7 BLLR 689 (LAC)

  3. Collective misconduct, but unable to pinpoint perpetrators: Inference of individual guilt. Common purpose. Derivative misconduct. Team misconduct. Foschini Group v Maidi

  4. Derivative misconduct: Chauke v Lee Service Centre (1998) 19 ILJ 1441 (LAC): “Where an employee has or may reasonably be supposed to have information concerning the guilty, his or her failure to come forward with the information may itself amount to misconduct. The relationship between employer and employee is in its essentials one of trust and confidence, and, even at common law, conduct clearly inconsistent with that essential warranted termination of employment. Failure to assist an employer in bringing the guilty to book violates this duty and may itself justify dismissal.” Foschini Group v Maidi

  5. Team misconduct: FCRAWU v Snip Trading [2001] 7 BALR 669 (P): “In my view, the species of misconduct upon which the company relies when it calls members of an entire staff to book for stock loss, although collective in nature, would be better described as ‘team misconduct’. … In the case of ‘team misconduct’ the employer dismisses a group of workers because responsibility for the collective conduct of the group is indivisible. It is accordingly unnecessary in cases of team misconduct to prove individual culpability, ‘derivative misconduct’ (see Chauke’s case), or common purpose – the three grounds upon which dismissal for collective misconduct can otherwise be justified. In ‘team misconduct’ the employees are dismissed because, as individual components of the group, each has culpably failed to ensure that the group complies with a rule or attains a performance standard set by the employer.” Foschini Group v Maidi

  6. LAC’s conclusion in Foschini Group: “The arbitrator, in concluding that all five employees were fairly dismissed, came to a decision which falls within a range of reasonable outcomes by following legal principles that have been authoritatively dealt with in the matters referred to above.” Foschini Group v Maidi

  7. Hearsay evidence: No absolute bar to admission in arbitration proceedings. Common practice for forensic auditors to give evidence regarding financial irregularities despite not having been involved in investigation. Foschini Group v Maidi

  8. LAC’s conclusion in Foschini Group: “As Mr Wilson was not personally present during the stock-taking and did not personally generate the stock loss documents which resulted in his investigations, these documents were strictly speaking hearsay, but it was permissible for the arbitrator to have relied on them in conjunction with Mr Wilson’s testimony, provided he was satisfied that the evidence was reliable, which it was. Moreover, his view that the evidence was reliable was eminently reasonable.” Foschini Group v Maidi

More Related