respondent full benefits as well as full salary benefit payments from the day of ‘with termination of services up until re-employment.’ Mr. Vliege attacks this award on various grounds but his main attack is that the award of reinstatement is not an award sounding in money and it is uncertain. No evidence was tendered before the arbitrator regarding the remuneration of the respondent, nor any surrounding circumstances relevant to the determination of the compensation to be paid and the order of reinstatement. [58] Mr. Vliege went on to argue that the order for reinstatement does not mean, by necessity and operation of law, that the respondent was required to be paid all remuneration that he would have been paid had he not been dismissed, the compensation awarded is not even in The appellant, so the argument ‘estimated money’. went, is left with having to quantify what amount it should pay the respondent if this appeal is dismissed. The arbitrator erred in this regard as the award should, at a minimum, have been couched in monetary terms. [59] Another basis on which Mr. Vliege attacks the award is that the Respondent was required to mitigate his losses. He argued that approximately 7 months passed between the date of dismissal and the date of the award. Any income received during this period had to be taken into account so as to ensure that the respondent did not from his ‘profit’ dismissal, bearing in mind the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent what he would have earned during the period that he was dismissed. The Respondent led no evidence to show that had he had attempted to mitigate his losses, nor did he lead evidence in respect of any other relevant surrounding circumstance, so as to enable the arbitrator to make a just and equitable award. [60] The last basis of attack is the argument that the respondent was required to place facts before the arbitrator to establish that reinstatement is appropriate in the circumstances. Reinstatement is discretionary and is an inappropriate remedy in instances in which the relationship of trust between the employer and the employee has broken down. Due to repeated misconduct by the respondent, especially the misconduct perpetrated by the respondent in respect to the third charge involving the breach of the security policy, the relationship of trust between the respondent and the appellant has broken down, so the argument went.
respondent ‘with full benefits as well as full salary benefit payments from the day of termination of services up until re-employment.’ Mr. Vliege attacks this award on various grounds but his main attack is that the award of reinstatement is not an award sounding in money and it is uncertain. No evidence was tendered before the arbitrator regarding the remuneration of the respondent, nor any surrounding circumstances relevant to the determination of the compensation to be paid and the order of reinstatement. [58] Mr. Vliege went on to argue that the order for reinstatement does not mean, by necessity and operation of law, that the respondent was required to be paid all remuneration that he would have been paid had he not been dismissed, the compensation awarded is not even ‘estimated in money’. The appellant, so the argument went, is left with having to quantify what amount it should pay the respondent if this appeal is dismissed. The arbitrator erred in this regard as the award should, at a minimum, have been couched in monetary terms. [59] Another basis on which Mr. Vliege attacks the award is that the Respondent was required to mitigate his losses. He argued that approximately 7 months passed between the date of dismissal and the date of the award. Any income received during this period had to be taken into account so as to ensure that the respondent did not ‘profit’ from his dismissal, bearing in mind the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent what he would have earned during the period that he was dismissed. The Respondent led no evidence to show that had he had attempted to mitigate his losses, nor did he lead evidence in respect of any other relevant surrounding circumstance, so as to enable the arbitrator to make a just and equitable award. [60] The last basis of attack is the argument that the respondent was required to place facts before the arbitrator to establish that reinstatement is appropriate in the circumstances. Reinstatement is discretionary and is an inappropriate remedy in instances in which the relationship of trust between the employer and the employee has broken down. Due to repeated misconduct by the respondent, especially the misconduct perpetrated by the respondent in respect to the third charge involving the breach of the security policy, the relationship of trust between the respondent and the appellant has broken down, so the argument went.