Airey and Others v GE Security (Africa) (C218/06) [2008] ZALC 132; (2009) 30 ILJ 1068 (LC) (3 October 2008)

Airey and Others v GE Security (Africa) (C218/06) [2008] ZALC 132; (2009) 30 ILJ 1068 (LC) (3 October 2008)

The court found that while the respondent engaged in a consultation process and agreed on selection criteria with the applicants, it failed to properly implement those criteria when populating the new structure. The respondent did not adequately consider the applicants for alternative positions beyond those for which they applied, contrary to its own promises and the requirements of section 189 of the Labour Relations Act. The failure to follow a layer-by-layer population of the structure and to consider reasonable alternatives to retrenchment rendered the dismissals procedurally unfair. The applicants were not entitled to enhanced severance pay, as no binding group policy or precedent...

Citation
[2008] ZALC 132
Parties
Applicant: Roger Airey; Applicant: David Denoon-Stevens; Applicant: Vincent Watters; Respondent: GE Security (Africa)
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 October 2008
Case Number
C218/06
Procedural Posture
Labour Law Claim / Trial Judgment
Outcome
The applicants’ dismissals were procedurally unfair. Compensation is awarded.
Judges
Cele AJ
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Retrenchment, Selection Criteria, Consultation Process, Severance Pay, Operational Requirements
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Retrenchment Selection Criteria Consultation Process Severance Pay Operational Requirements

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger Airey

Applicant

David Denoon-Stevens

Applicant

Vincent Watters

Applicant

GE Security (Africa)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Law Claim / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent followed fair and agreed selection criteria in retrenching the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent properly consulted with the applicants regarding alternatives to dismissal, including bumping.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants were entitled to enhanced severance pay based on alleged group policy or precedent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the respondent engaged in a consultation process and agreed on selection criteria with the applicants, it failed to properly implement those criteria when populating the new structure. The respondent did not adequately consider the applicants for alternative positions beyond those for which they applied, contrary to its own promises and the requirements of section 189 of the Labour Relations Act. The failure to follow a layer-by-layer population of the structure and to consider reasonable alternatives to retrenchment rendered the dismissals procedurally unfair. The applicants were not entitled to enhanced severance pay, as no binding group policy or precedent...

Court Disposition

The applicants’ dismissals were procedurally unfair. Compensation is awarded.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to compensate each applicant in an amount equivalent to five months of the remuneration earned by each applicant on the date of his dismissal. Such payment is to be made within 10 days from the date hereof.
  • The respondent is to pay the costs of this claim.