Read the following scenario and answer the questions that follow.

The case of a strict branch manager

The appellant, was employed by a well$-$known South African bank as a branch

manager. The appellant was transferred to a banking branch that was in need of

rehabilitation 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 $28$

August $2017$ and dismissed on $12$ January $2018$ for misconduct. A commissioner

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 fairly 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:

$1.$ It is alleged that you have conducted yourself 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 created an environment that is hostile at the Branch, in

that:

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

offensive 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

Some observations about this formulation are appropriate. Plainly, it is composed

of generalised conclusions and bereft of a single concrete allegation of fact. A

request for further particulars was de facto refused in an answer which simply

said that the $$offences$$ occurred since August $2015,$ i$.$e$.,$ over a two$-$year period.

Such notice to the appellant of discernible facts became available only in

statements made by the several witnesses, included in a trial bundle, and upon

which they were each led in evidence. The statements variably alluded to some

concrete factual allegations and, mostly, to generalised grievances. All the

incidents alleged or grievances described therein were in the context of the

appellant$$s role as a manager giving directions or correcting or rebuking staff for

performance on the job.

The multitude of incidents mentioned by the several witnesses were supposed to

have occurred during a period of up to two years prior to her suspension and

many, but not all, were only vaguely located in time. The tenor of the appellant$$s

defence was threefold: $(1)$ to deny certain alleged incidents occurred at all; $(2)$

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 alleged 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

$2\mathrm{.}1$ 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

$2\mathrm{.}2$ Provide four examples from evidence presented at the Labour Court of

why this dismissal was seen as fair. $(4)$

$2\mathrm{.}3$ There are many issues of concern that were raised at the Labour Court

as to the facts provided in this case. Highlight four key areas from the

dismissed branch manager$$s viewpoint that would serve as lessons to

the branch management and staff for future disciplinary matters. $(8)$