About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

7 Indus. L.J. (Juta) 318 (1986)
Stevenson v Sterns Jewellers (PTY) Ltd

handle is hein.journals/iljuta7 and id is 320 raw text is: 318 STEVENSON v STERNS JEWELLERS (PTY) LTD FABRICIUS AM (1986) 7 ILJ 318 IC approval to the ordinary meaning of the term being 'a refusal by the workers to continue to work for their employer unless he will give them more wages or better conditions of labour'. A mere cessation of work is therefore not a strike per se. There must A be a demand related to a concerted refusal to work and such refusal must be shown to be intended to persist until the demand is met. In hoc casu the applicants wished to discuss the memorandum. I doubt whether this request can be regarded as a 'demand' in the proper sense (ie in the context of a 'strike'). It can only be such if it was clear that the employees B would not continue to work until this request was met. This, in my view, the employer has failed to show. For these reasons the reinstatement order was granted. Applicants' Attorneys: Selwyn Cohen, Johannesburg. C Respondents' Attorneys: F Kajee, Johannesburg. D STEVENSON v STERNS JEWELLERS (PTY) LTD INDUSTRIAL COURT 31 January; 24 March 1986 E Before FABRICIUS, Additional Member Dismissal-Executive-Fairness of-Factors to be considered. Dismissal-Failure to hold an enquiry-Company executive- Whether relevant where equities of case in all circumstances indicated that applicant not treated unfairly. F Reinstatement-Section 43 of Labour Relations Act-Executive dismissed-Failure to hold an enquiry-Whether relevant where ap- plicant, on equities, not treated unfairly. Reinstatement- Section 43 of Labour Relations Act-Executive dismissed- Whether reinstatement should be ordered-Factors to be C considered. Stevenson had been appointed as managing director of the respondent company. Three weeks later he was peremptorily dismissed because his 'style of management' allegedly did not suit the company. Stevenson argued that his H dismissal had been substantively and procedurally unfair and relied in the latter regard on the lack of a proper hearing before dismissal. The company argued that the incompatibility in managerial philosophy and style between Stevenson and the other officers of the company justified the dismissal; managing directors were not 'mere units of labour'. Held, that the case was not one of misconduct and subsequent hearing, or lack of it; but, on the other hand, the company's argument that a managing director was not 'a mere unit of labour' had to be rejected since it would be extremely undesirable to classify employees in this way. Held, further, and in regard to the equities of the case in all the circumstances, that the application should be dismissed in view of inter alia the following

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most