Case: Industrial Court
![handle is hein.journals/iljuta10 and id is 801 raw text is: J v M LTD 755
DE KOCK M (1989) 10 ILJ 755 IC
period of three months only. The respondent shall pay the amounts due
to them within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this
order.
4 No order is made as to costs.
[Annexure B not reproduced.] A
Applicant's Atorneys: Cheadle Thompson & Haysom, Johannesburg.
Respondent's Attorneys: Webber Wentzel, Johannesburg. B
J v M LTD c
INDUSTRIAL COURT
22 February; 16 March 1989
DURBAN D
Before ARTHUR DE KOCK, Member
Disciplinary code and procedure-Disciplinary penalty-Senior executive-
Dismissed for sexual harassment-Sexual harassment serious offence- E
Dismissal not unfair.
Disciplinary code and procedure-Disciplinary penalty-Senior executive-
Dismissedfor sexual harassment-Standard of conduct expected of employees
a managerial prerogative-Court should not substitute its assessment for that
of employer-Dismissal not unfair. F
Disciplinary code and procedure-Procedural fairness-Senior executive-Dis-
missed for sexual harassment-Employer's disciplinary code and procedure
not fully adhered to-In circumstances proper enquiry would not have
produced different outcome-Employee given fair opportunity to state case-
Dismissal not unfair. G
Dismissal-Misconduct-Sexual harassment-By senior executive - Employer
has duty to protect employees against-Dismissal not unfair.
Sexual harassment-Employer's duty-To protect employees against such
harassment-Dismissal of offender not unfair. H
Sexual harassment, whether it is between members of the opposite sex or of the
same sex, is a serious matter which requires attention from employers. Sexual
harassment, depending on the form it takes, violates that right to integrity of
the body and personality which belongs to every person and which is
protected in our legal system both criminally and civilly. An employer has a
duty to ensure that its employees are not subjected to this form of violation
within the work-place.
The applicant, a senior executive employee, was charged with and found guilty of
sexual harassment and dismissed. In an application in terms of s 43 of the
Labour Relations Act the court found that the applicant had on numerous
occasions sexually harassed staff; that he had been warned several times in a J](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/iljuta10&div=91&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Case: Industrial Court
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most