AMCU obo Phele and Others v BDM Management (Pty) Ltd and Another (JR2223/2014) [2016] ZALCJHB 424 (4 November 2016)

AMCU obo Phele and Others v BDM Management (Pty) Ltd and Another (JR2223/2014) [2016] ZALCJHB 424 (4 November 2016)

The court found that the fax cover page sent by the respondent to the union did not constitute proper notification of the termination of the employment contracts. The employment contracts endured until 26 March 2012, when the actual notice of termination was received by the union. The respondent had a duty to ensure that the notice of termination was properly conveyed and received. As a result, the employees were entitled to remuneration for the period between the disciplinary hearing and the date of actual notification. The respondent's argument that the union should have contacted them about the incomplete fax was rejected; the responsibility to ensure proper notification rested with...

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 424
Parties
Applicant: AMCU obo Phele, M and 16 Others; Respondent: BDM Management (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: BDM Projects (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 November 2016
Case Number
JR2223/2014
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Stated Case and Argument
Outcome
Application granted. The respondents are ordered to pay the applicants outstanding wages and costs.
Judges
E Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Termination of Employment, Notice Requirements, Unpaid Wages, Common Law Contract, Disciplinary Procedure
Labour Law Civil Procedure Termination of Employment Notice Requirements Unpaid Wages Common Law Contract Disciplinary 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AMCU obo Phele, M and 16 Others

Applicant

BDM Management (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

BDM Projects (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Stated Case and Argument

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fax cover page sent to the union constituted proper notification of termination of the employment contracts.
  2. 2 Whether the employees' employment contracts were terminated on 30 January 2012 or 26 March 2012.
  3. 3 Whether the employees are entitled to remuneration up until 26 March 2012.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the fax cover page sent by the respondent to the union did not constitute proper notification of the termination of the employment contracts. The employment contracts endured until 26 March 2012, when the actual notice of termination was received by the union. The respondent had a duty to ensure that the notice of termination was properly conveyed and received. As a result, the employees were entitled to remuneration for the period between the disciplinary hearing and the date of actual notification. The respondent's argument that the union should have contacted them about the incomplete fax was rejected; the responsibility to ensure proper notification rested with...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The respondents are ordered to pay the applicants outstanding wages and costs.

Orders

  • The Respondents are ordered to pay the Applicants the total sum of R90 026.56.
  • Interest on R90 026.56 calculated tempore more until date of the final payment.