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 nearly 2,700 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 with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?