Tongai Machona v Old Mutual Limited

Key Issues

• {"issue_text":"Whether the suspension without a preliminary hearing as required by Clause 5.4.5 of the Code of Conduct rendered the disciplinary proceedings a nullity","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Appellant was suspended on 16 December 2010 without the Divisional Manager convening a meeting with the employee, his workers' committee representative, his super-senior, the Personnel Development Adviser and witnesses as required by Clause 5.4.5"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether the Respondent discharged the onus of proof on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant committed the misconduct alleged","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The investigation compared overtime claim forms with access control reports showing discrepancies; Appellant admitted to some claims during the hearing"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether the Appellant deliberately gave untrue, erroneous or misleading information or whether the inflations were innocent errors","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Appellant claimed 47 hours of inflated overtime; Appellant argued these were innocent errors; Respondent argued the magnitude and persistence made this credible"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether the penalty of dismissal was appropriate in the circumstances","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The acts of misconduct were acts of dishonesty going to the root of the employment relationship"}

Background