Summary
The Supreme Court restored a Labour Court award denying reinstatement to a school clerk. Absence of a prior domestic inquiry did not prevent the employer proving its case through evidence before the Labour Court. That evidence established abandonment years before the alleged termination, while the claimant failed to substantiate continuous service in the preceding year. The High Court had erred by ordering reinstatement solely because no disciplinary inquiry had been held.
Issues
- Whether absence of a domestic inquiry alone required reinstatement despite evidence received by the Labour Court.
- Whether the claimant proved the alleged termination and requisite preceding service.
Held
- Where no domestic inquiry is held, or the inquiry is defective, the employer may seek to justify its action through evidence before the industrial adjudicator. The adjudicator must assess that evidence; reinstatement does not follow automatically from the procedural omission. (¶ 14)
- Both sides had a full opportunity to lead evidence. The school established that the claimant had ceased attending in 1997 and never returned, while the High Court failed to address that evidentiary finding. (¶¶ 11, 13, 15, 18)
- The claimant did not substantiate her asserted service for 240 days in the year preceding the alleged 2006 termination. Her unsupported assertion and a recommendation referring to an award already set aside did not discharge the burden. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- The Labour Court’s denial of relief was restored; the High Court could not reverse it solely on the absence of a prior disciplinary inquiry. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 19)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court’s reinstatement judgment set aside and the Labour Court award restored, without costs.