Buti and Others v Lesotho Precious Garments (Pty) Ltd (LC/REV 27 of 9) [2011] LSLC 2 (15 July 2011)

Buti and Others v Lesotho Precious Garments (Pty) Ltd (LC/REV 27 of 9) [2011] LSLC 2 (15 July 2011)

The respondent complied with the legal requirements for consultation prior to retrenchment by informing and consulting the affected employees once retrenchment was identified as a possible solution, and gave preference to former employees for reemployment based on declared skills and applications. There was no evidence of procedural or substantive unfairness or selective reemployment against the applicants.

Citation
[2011] LSLC 2
Parties
Applicant: Serame Buti; Applicant: Masia Tsoeu; Applicant: Ntsukunyane Chabeli; Applicant: Thabo Mariti; Applicant: Paramente Moeletsi; Applicant: Lebohang Maile; Respondent: Lesotho Precious Garments (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
15 July 2011
Case Number
LC/REV 27 of 9
Procedural Posture
Labour Court Review / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Retrenchment, Consultation, Selective Reemployment, Unfair Dismissal
Source Language
English
Labour Law Retrenchment Consultation Selective Reemployment Unfair Dismissal

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Serame Buti

Applicant

Masia Tsoeu

Applicant

Ntsukunyane Chabeli

Applicant

Thabo Mariti

Applicant

Paramente Moeletsi

Applicant

Lebohang Maile

Applicant

Lesotho Precious Garments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Court Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the retrenchment of the applicants was procedurally and substantively fair
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was guilty of selective reemployment to the exclusion of the applicants

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent complied with the legal requirements for consultation prior to retrenchment by informing and consulting the affected employees once retrenchment was identified as a possible solution, and gave preference to former employees for reemployment based on declared skills and applications. There was no evidence of procedural or substantive unfairness or selective reemployment against the applicants.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed