IRM1501
PORTFOLIO Semester 1 2024
Detailed Solutions, References & Explanations
MAY JUNE 2024
Due Date: 27 May 2024
QUESTION 1 (3 ANSWERS PROVIDED)
Facts:
The employee, a security guard, was dismissed for failing to conduct searches in
accordance with the prescribed policy, or not conducting them at all. The employer claimed
that this was part of an attempt to minimize theft losses amounting to nearly R500 000.00
per day, while the employee claimed he was not properly trained and was performing tasks
of a more senior position.1 The CCMA reinstated the employee with 3 months’
compensation and a written warning, which was upheld by the Labour Court and LAC, but
overturned by the SCA. The Constitutional Court later restored the Commissioner's award.1
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
• Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
• Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
• Fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Disclaimer
Extreme care has been used to create this document, however the contents are provided “as is” without
any representations or warranties, express or implied. The author assumes no liability as a result of
reliance and use of the contents of this document. This document is to be used for comparison, research
and reference purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be reproduced, resold or transmitted in any
form or by any means.
PORTFOLIO Semester 1 2024
Detailed Solutions, References & Explanations
MAY JUNE 2024
Due Date: 27 May 2024
QUESTION 1 (3 ANSWERS PROVIDED)
Facts:
The employee, a security guard, was dismissed for failing to conduct searches in
accordance with the prescribed policy, or not conducting them at all. The employer claimed
that this was part of an attempt to minimize theft losses amounting to nearly R500 000.00
per day, while the employee claimed he was not properly trained and was performing tasks
of a more senior position.1 The CCMA reinstated the employee with 3 months’
compensation and a written warning, which was upheld by the Labour Court and LAC, but
overturned by the SCA. The Constitutional Court later restored the Commissioner's award.1
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
• Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
• Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
• Fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Disclaimer
Extreme care has been used to create this document, however the contents are provided “as is” without
any representations or warranties, express or implied. The author assumes no liability as a result of
reliance and use of the contents of this document. This document is to be used for comparison, research
and reference purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be reproduced, resold or transmitted in any
form or by any means.
