Pretoria - Too sick to work, but not sick enough to attend a wedding in another city! The decision came at a high price for Daniel Matras, a former employee at Mediclinic in Potchefstroom.
He was dismissed more than 10 years ago after it was found that he was dishonest. Matras, represented by trade union Nehawu, has been unsuccessfully fighting his dismissal all these years.
He was dealt yet another blow a few days ago, when the Labour Court turned 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.
In the course of his legal battles over the years, it was never found that the sick note that he had obtained was fraudulent or that he was never ill. However, it was found that the sick note was used for dishonest reasons.
In his bid to overturn his dismissal, it was argued on behalf of Matras that since he had a sick note, it was his business what he did while he was legally booked off from work.
It turned out that days before he was booked off, Matras did mention to his supervisor that one of his family members was getting married in George.
The sick note he obtained from a doctor indicated that he felt under the weather, and Matras was booked off for a few days in June 2012.
He told his employer that he would not be able to attend his shift due to illness. Shortly afterwards his supervisor sent him a message in which she expressed her misgiving that he may have booked off to attend the wedding which 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 with the finding, 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 was held before a different arbitrator.
The new arbitrator also found his dismissal to be both substantively and procedurally fair.
Still aggrieved by this finding, the Labour Court was yet again asked to review this finding, which application was turned down. In the latest development, leave to appeal against the above finding was also refused.
Matras’s 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.
Pretoria News