Question $2(15$ marks$)$

Rend the following scenaris and arswer the questions that follow.

The case of a strkt branch manager

The appellant, was employed by a well$-$known South African bank as a branch manager. The appellant was transferred to a bonking branch thet was in need of rehabulation owing to the branch having been neglected and ill$-$discipline having set in$.$ Under her leadership, the branch was recognised as the third best performing branch in the respondent's business. She was suspended on $28$ Aupust $2017$ and dismissed on $12$ January $2018$ for msconduct, A commissibner of the CCMA issued an award on $12$ October $2018$ that she had been unfairly dismissed and ordered her reinstatement with full retrospectivity.

In a review of that decision, the Labour Court, on $22$ September $2021,$ set aside the award and declared that she had been falirly dismissed. This appeal lies against that order of the Labour Court.

The allegations of misconduct upon which a disciplinary enquiry found the appellant guilty, resulting in her dismissal, were as follows:

It is alleged that you have conducted pourself in a manner that is in breach of your contract of employment, your duty of good faith towards the Bank and your subordinates, and have croated an environment that is hostile at the Branch, in that:

$1\mathrm{.}1$ You communicate with your subordinates in a manner that is disrespectful, offerisive and childish.

$1\mathrm{.}2$ You shout at your subordinates using inappropriate words $($vulgar language$)$ in front of their colleagues and the customers of the bank.

$1\mathrm{.}3$ You fail to motivate your team and to value the ideas raised by certain of your subordinates. This has resulted with $[$sic$]$ our subordinates feeling uncomfortable and worthless.

Evaluation

Same abservations about this formulation are sppropriate. Plainly, it is composed of generalised conclusions and beren of a single concrete allegetion of fact. A request for further particulars was de facto refused in an answer which simply said that the 'offences' occurred since Auguat $2015,$ l$.$e$.,$ over a two$-$year perlod. Such notice to the appellant of discernible facts became availabies only in statements made by the several witnesses, included in o trial bundle, and upon which they were each led in evidence. The statements variably alluated to some concrete factual allegations and, mostly, to generalised grievances. All the incidents alleged or grievances described thercin were in the context of the appeilant's role as a manager piving directions or correcting or rebuking staff for performance an the job.

The multitude of incidents mentioned by the several witnesses were supposed to have accurred during a period of up to two years pricer to her suspension and many, but nat all, were only vaguely located in time. The tenor of the appellant's defence was threefold: $(1)$ to drony certain alleqed incidents occurred at alli; $(2)$ to admit certain other incidents, but to offer a rebuttal of the interpretation placed on them by the witnesses; and $(3)$ to respond that she had no recollection of an alloged incident, but to deny that the spin put on it by the witnesses was appropriate.

The two critical issues for decision by the commissioner were the credibility and the reliability of the various witnesses. He was conscious that an onus rested on the respondent to prove its case, an important dimension of the overall controversy, Ultimately, the commissioner concluded that the version of the appellant was preferable to that of her nine accusers, because it was, in his assessment, more probable. In addition, the commissioner was critical of the respondent's attitude towards sanction, even on the premise of the misconduct having been proven, because the personal circumstances of the appellant were not, in his view, properly weighed. This included her $23$ years of exemplary service.

Source: Adapted from: Ou Toit, $1.2023,$ Dismissi of a strhct banch marsyer. $[$Online$]$ Avalishie from: $2023].$

$2\mathrm{.}1$ With regard to the Labour Relations Act, $1995($Act No$.66$ of $1995)$ and the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal $($Schedule $8),$ identify the classification of reason for dismissal and give evidence for your selection.

$2\mathrm{.}2$ Provide four inxamples frum evidence presented at then labour Court of why this tismissal was seen as fair.

$(4)$

$2\mathrm{.}3$ There are many issues of cencern that were ralsed at the Latasur Court as to the facts provided in this case, Hohlight fuur key areas from the dismlssed branch manager's viewpaint that would serve as lersoons to the branch mansqement and staff for future tisciplinary matters.

$($B$)$

Question $3(15$ marks$)$

Read the following extract and answer the question that follows.

Policy for night shift and shift allowance

With regard to the performance of night work, South African legislation does not say how much the shirt allowance must be$,$ nor does it say by what method or formula it must be calculated, presumably then, that is lef for the employer and the emplovee to negotiate."

Within the context of the above excer