Part 2 (Desertion Continued ….) In the case ofSeabolo v Belgravia Hotel [1997] 6 BLLR 829 (CCMA), case number GA 1288, The applicant required the CCMA to consider whether he had been unfairly dismissed, taking into account that there was no disciplinary enquiry, and that the reason for the dismissal was not a fair reason. The question arose - did the applicant desert, resulting in his dismissal? As is usual, there are always conflicting versions. The owner of the hotel stated that he did not have a relief barman to stand in for the employee when he went off to visit the sick mother. The employer's version was that she informed the employee that she had several other duties to attend to, but as soon as she had finished these tasks she would relieve him. At about 4 pm, the applicant, packed away his liquor stock in his cupboard, cashed up, requested his customers to move to another bar, closed his bar, went to the employer's office and handed in his keys. According to the employer, the employee came to the office, threw his keys on the table, and said he wanted his money as he was leaving. The employer paid him and he left the office. While in Rustenburg attending to his sick mother, the employee did not telephone his employer from the hospital, and nor did he send any messages.His only explanation for not telephoning from the hospital was that he was "confused". There was no evidence to prove that the employee had no intention of returning to his shift the following day, as arranged with the employer. As we all know, normally "the intention not to return to work" is one of the essential elements in concluding that a desertion has taken place. The following was quoted in the arbitration award:“desertion is distinguishable from absence without
Want to read all 3 pages?
Previewing 2 of 3 pages Upload your study docs or become a member.
Want to read all 3 pages?
Previewing 2 of 3 pages Upload your study docs or become a member.
End of preview
Want to read all 3 pages? Upload your study docs or become a member.