A former Potchefstroom Mediclinic employee, who has been unsuccessfully fighting for 10 years against his dismissal, has struck out again, with the Labour Court turning down his leave to appeal against an earlier finding in which he lost his case to set aside the finding of an arbitrator that his dismissal was fair.
Daniel Matras was dismissed more than a decade ago for being dishonest: he had handed in a sick note but during his alleged sick leave, attended a wedding. He was dismissed.
Represented by trade union Nehawu, since then he has been vainly attempting to appeal his dismissal, reports IOL.
In his bid to overturn his sacking, it was argued that since Matras had a doctor’s certificate, it was his business what he did while he was legally booked off sick.
It transpired that days before being booked off, he had told his supervisor one of his relatives was getting married in George. The sick note he obtained from a doctor said he felt under the weather, and he was booked off for several days in June 2012.
He told his employer he would not be able to attend his shift due to illness. Shortly afterwards his supervisor sent him a message expressing her misgiving that he may have booked off to attend the wedding he had earlier mentioned.
When he returned to work, he faced a disciplinary hearing and was fired.
He took the matter to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), which ruled his dismissal to be fair. Unhappy, Matras turned to the Labour Court to review and set side the CCMA’s finding. The matter was readmitted to the CCMA and a new hearing held before a different arbitrator, who also found his dismissal to be procedurally fair.
Still aggrieved, he asked the Labour Court to yet again review this finding, which application was turned down. In the latest development, leave to appeal against the above finding was also refused.
Matras’ argument was that the fact that he had a legal sick note from a doctor was ignored by all.
He said his former employer never elected to call the doctor to dispute the sick note, thus it could not be disputed that he was under the weather at the time. According to Matras, things should have ended the minute he had handed in his sick note and legally gone on leave. It was argued that it did not matter whether he chose to remain home to get better or travelled to the wedding.
He maintained that he was sick and definitely not dishonest.
During his legal battles against his dismissal, it was found that the arbitrator did weigh up all the evidence – that of Matras and the “hearsay” submission of his supervisor and other witnesses.
The arbitrator concluded that Matras was dishonest and that he had wanted to go to the wedding, and thus obtained the sick note.
In refusing leave to appeal, the court found that another court would not come to a different finding than that of the arbitrator – namely that the sick note was used for dishonest reasons.
See more from MedicalBrief archives:
MS sufferer looks to CCMA to reverse Woolies suspension over ‘incapacity’
CCMA upholds ‘anti-vaxxer’ dismissal but awards compensation for WhatsApp firing
Labour Court orders dismissal of ‘reckless’ worker who defied COVID-19 regulations
Gauteng Health legal head paid R4.7m to twiddle her thumbs at home for 3 years