Nena v Standard Lesotho Bank (LC 32 of 2007) [2008] LSLC 10 (10 June 2008)

Nena v Standard Lesotho Bank (LC 32 of 2007) [2008] LSLC 10 (10 June 2008)

The court found that the respondent had adequately consulted with employees and their union as required by law, and there was no duty to engage in individual consultations. The selection criteria were communicated and followed, and the applicant was selected for early retirement based on age as per the criteria. However, the respondent erred in calculating the applicant’s severance package based on 14 years instead of 34 years of continuous service, as there was no evidence that the 1992 break in service affected continuity. The applicant was entitled to the balance of his severance package.

Citation
[2008] LSLC 10
Parties
Applicant: Molefi Raphael ‘Nena; Respondent: Standard Lesotho Bank
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
10 June 2008
Case Number
LC 32 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Labour / Judgment
Outcome
Applicant's claim for short calculation of severance package succeeds; other claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Retrenchment, Consultation, Severance Pay, Collective Agreements, Selection Criteria
Source Language
English
Labour Law Retrenchment Consultation Severance Pay Collective Agreements Selection Criteria

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Molefi Raphael ‘Nena

Applicant

Standard Lesotho Bank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the retrenchment of the applicant was procedurally unfair
  2. 2 Whether the severance package was miscalculated by 20 years
  3. 3 Whether the respondent complied with consultation requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent had adequately consulted with employees and their union as required by law, and there was no duty to engage in individual consultations. The selection criteria were communicated and followed, and the applicant was selected for early retirement based on age as per the criteria. However, the respondent erred in calculating the applicant’s severance package based on 14 years instead of 34 years of continuous service, as there was no evidence that the 1992 break in service affected continuity. The applicant was entitled to the balance of his severance package.

Court Disposition

Applicant's claim for short calculation of severance package succeeds; other claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay applicant the balance of his service as claimed in the amount of M81,534.00.
  • No order as to costs.