Search results
“The commissioner at the CCMA found that Mr. Simmers’ conduct constituted sexual harassment as the verbal sexual advances made to Ms. Markides were unwelcome and related to the workplace. The CCMA also found that Mr. Simmers had acted in an unprofessional manner in making remarks to Ms. Markides about Mr. Le Roux behind his back which could
2 gru 2015 · During the middle of 2014, the case of Simmers v Campbell Scientific Africa (Pty) Ltd made the headlines for all the wrong reasons. The Labour Court had previously found that the employee, Simmers, had not sexually harassed a female employee of another employer but was simply ‘trying his luck’.
Simmers’ conduct constituted ‘sexual at-tention’ and was crude and inappropriate; but inappropriate conduct does not auto-matically constitute sexual harassment. Simmers’ conduct could only have become sexual harassment if he had persisted in it or if it was a single serious transgression.
Meanwhile, in Campbell Scientific Africa (Pty) Ltd v Simmers,18 Mr Simmers, a 48-year-old installation manager employed by the appellant was dismissed following a disciplinary hearing for unprofessional conduct and sexual harassment. According to the evidence led, Mr Simmers said to
Labour Court (Steenkamp J) in which the dismissal of the first respondent, Mr Adrian Simmers, for sexual harassment and unprofessional conduct was found substantively unfair and his retrospective reinstatement ordered subject to a final written warning valid for 12 months. .
In the case of Campbell Scientific Africa (Pty) Limited v Simmers and others [2015] JOL 34906 (LAC), it was held that an employer is entitled to discipline an employee for misconduct which was both related to and impacted on the employment relationship.
In the recent case of Campbell Scientific Africa (Pty) Ltd v Simmers, the Labour Appeal Court considered the type of conduct that constitutes sexual harassment.
