substantive fairness in dismissal – dishonesty – misconduct – dishonest statements – company suffering prejudice – deliberately deceitful – intentionally mislead – breakdown of employment relationship – appeal dismissed
The second appellant had been employed by the respondent until his dismissal for misconduct. The alleged misconduct related to an arbitration hearing in which the second appellant had represented another employee. The respondent alleged that the second appellant had made certain dishonest statements in that hearing, leading to the company’s suffering prejudice.
According to the appellants, the second appellant’s dismissal amounted to victimisation in that he was punished for having represented his fellow employee against the company.
Held that although the facts which gave rise to the second appellant’s dismissal occurred while he was representing a fellow employee, he was not dismissed for representing a fellow employee but for his dishonesty. The breakdown of the employment relationship was a justifiable reason for the dismissal. The appeal was dismissed.