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

8 Indus. L.J. (Juta) 356 (1987)
Whitcutt v Computer Diagnostics & (and) Engineering (PTY) Ltd

handle is hein.journals/iljuta8 and id is 358 raw text is: 356 WHITCUTT v COMPUTER DIAGNOSTICS & ENGINEERING (PTY) LTD VAN SCHALKWYK M, SCHOEMAN AM (1987) 8 ILJ 356 IC A 6.2 In terms of s 43(5) of the Act this order shall be operative from 3 November 1986. Applicants' Attorneys: Cheadle Thompson & Haysom, Johannesburg. Respondent's Attorneys: Ben Beukes, Vanderbijlpark. B WHITCUTT v COMPUTER DIAGNOSTICS & c ENGINEERING (PTY) LTD INDUSTRIAL COURT 10 November; 18 November 1986 D PRETORIA Before VAN SCHALKWYK, Member and SCHOEMAN, Additional Member E Companies Act-Does not curtail rights of employees covered by Labour Relations Act. Contract of employment-Employee also director and prospective shareholder of company-Such separate capacities with separate legal consequences- Companies Act does not curtail rights of employees covered by Labour F Relations Act. Dismissal- Procedural fairness-No enquiry into alleged misconduct- Enquiry may have produced different result-Dismissal unfair. Dismissal-Substantive fairn ess-Allegation that employee disclosed confiden- tial information and was incompetent-Allegations unproven - Dismissal G unfair. Employee Also director and prospective shareholder of company-Such separate capacities with separate legal consequences-Companies Act does not curtail rights of employees covered by Labour Relations Act. Employee-Senior executive- Contemplated by definition of 'employee' in H Labour Relations Act. In an application for reinstatement under s 43 of the Labour Relations Act 28 of 1956, the applicant alleged that his dismissal from his position as financial manager of the respondent company was unfair. The respondent denied, in the first instance, that the applicant was an employee at all but stated that, if there was any employment relationship between the parties, it was no more than an incident of his directorship and prospective shareholding. It submitted furthermore that the primary relationship between the parties-that flowing from the applicant's directorship-was governed by the Companies Act 61 of 1973 and the common law. In the circumstances, it concluded, the court had no jurisdiction to make an order which had any bearing on the applicant's directorship or prospective shareholding and it was therefore not empowered to make any reinstate- ment order.

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