(a) Corona was employed as a supervisor at Castle Bakeries.

He was dismissed after

having been found guilty of theft and consuming the company’s product without

authority. He was captured on CCTV eating slices of bread inside the bakery with the

door closed. The bread in question was left on the outer counter, to be disposed of later,

as it was damaged and could not be sold to customers. It was often given for free to the

local prison. Castle Bakeries has its own code of conduct. However, the hearing was

held in terms of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations, 2006.

The hearing was conducted on one day’s notice. At the hearing, he was not allowed to

cross-examine witnesses and his request for legal representation was turned down. In

mitigation, he had argued that he had 18 years of service, was a family man and had

never been found guilty of an offence previously. He, therefore, prayed for a final written

warning as the bread had no value to the company. Castle Bakeries dismissed him

despite his plea in mitigation. Corona wishes to challenge the dismissal. Advise Corona

on whether his dismissal was lawful. [20 Marks]

b) Red Rose (Pvt) Ltd is a large company that imports used motor vehicles from Japan.
For

the past ten years, it has been paying its senior employees annual performance
bonuses

and salary increases. In 2020, Red Rose (Pvt) Ltd failed to honour payment of the

annual bonus and salary increment although its managers had performed exceptionally

well. It argued that the annual bonus and the salary increment do not form the subject of

agreed terms and can be unilaterally varied by the employer. Advise Red Rose (Pvt) Ltd

on the correctness of its position. [10 Marks]