Absa Bank Limited and Another v Mackay (CA8/99) [2000] ZALAC 18 (22 August 2000)

Absa Bank Limited and Another v Mackay (CA8/99) [2000] ZALAC 18 (22 August 2000)

The court found insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the respondent was dismissed because he instituted a grievance against the appellants. The closure of the respondent's project and the failure to appoint him to alternative positions were not shown to be motivated by retaliation for the grievance. There was no evidence of a conspiracy among officials to dismiss the respondent for exercising his rights. Therefore, the dismissal was not automatically unfair under section 187(1)(d) of the Labour Relations Act. However, the appellants conceded that the dismissal was procedurally unfair due to lack of consultation, justifying compensation equal to 12 months' remuneration. The...

Citation
[2000] ZALAC 18
Parties
Appellant: Absa Bank Limited; Appellant: Cortal Direct (Pty) Limited; Respondent: B. H. G. Mackay
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 August 2000
Case Number
CA8/99
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal succeeds in part and fails in part. The finding of automatic unfair dismissal is set aside. The dismissal is declared procedurally unfair, and compensation equal to 12 months' remuneration is awarded.
Judges
R. M. M. Zondo, C. R. Nicholson, R. Nugent
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Automatic Unfair Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Compensation, Retrenchment, Internal Grievance Procedure
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Automatic Unfair Dismissal Procedural Fairness Compensation Retrenchment Internal Grievance Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Absa Bank Limited

Appellant

Cortal Direct (Pty) Limited

Appellant

B. H. G. Mackay

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the respondent's dismissal automatically unfair under section 187(1)(d) of the Labour Relations Act?
  2. 2 Was the dismissal procedurally and substantively unfair?
  3. 3 Is the respondent entitled to compensation for unfair dismissal, and if so, in what amount?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the respondent was dismissed because he instituted a grievance against the appellants. The closure of the respondent's project and the failure to appoint him to alternative positions were not shown to be motivated by retaliation for the grievance. There was no evidence of a conspiracy among officials to dismiss the respondent for exercising his rights. Therefore, the dismissal was not automatically unfair under section 187(1)(d) of the Labour Relations Act. However, the appellants conceded that the dismissal was procedurally unfair due to lack of consultation, justifying compensation equal to 12 months' remuneration. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal succeeds in part and fails in part. The finding of automatic unfair dismissal is set aside. The dismissal is declared procedurally unfair, and compensation equal to 12 months' remuneration is awarded.

Orders

  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with: (a) The dismissal of the applicant was procedurally unfair. (b) The respondents are ordered to pay to the applicant compensation equal to 12 months' remuneration calculated at the applicant's rate of pay at the time of his dismissal, jointly and severally,...
  • There is to be no order as to the costs of the appeal.