AMCU obo Rantho and Others v SAMANCOR Western Chrome Mines (JA62/19) [2020] ZALAC 46; (2020) 41 ILJ 2771 (LAC); [2021] 3 BLLR 236 (LAC) (1 October 2020)

AMCU obo Rantho and Others v SAMANCOR Western Chrome Mines (JA62/19) [2020] ZALAC 46; (2020) 41 ILJ 2771 (LAC); [2021] 3 BLLR 236 (LAC) (1 October 2020)

The Labour Appeal Court held that Samancor, by issuing an ultimatum to striking employees, waived its right to dismiss those who complied with the ultimatum and returned to work as instructed. The purpose of an ultimatum is to provide employees with a final opportunity to reconsider their conduct and avoid dismissal. Dismissal following compliance with an ultimatum undermines the constitutional right to strike and the orderly process of collective bargaining. The employer's reservation of the right to discipline in the ultimatum did not extend to dismissal for strike participation where compliance occurred. The dismissals were therefore substantively unfair. Mathiba was found not to have...

Citation
[2020] ZALAC 46
Parties
Appellant: AMCU obo LS Rantho and 158 Others; Appellant: Tebogo Moses Mathiba; Respondent: Samancor Western Chrome Mines
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 October 2020
Case Number
JA62/19
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment and Interlocutory Rulings
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Dismissals declared substantively unfair. Reinstatement ordered for all appellants, with limited retrospectivity for AMCU members and full retrospectivity for Mathiba. Costs awarded to Mathiba.
Judges
JR Murphy, P Coppin, F Kathree-Setlioane
Legal Topics
Unprotected Strike, Ultimatum and Waiver, Dismissal for Misconduct, Reinstatement, Bargaining Unit Dispute
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unprotected Strike Ultimatum and Waiver Dismissal for Misconduct Reinstatement Bargaining Unit Dispute

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

Parties

AMCU obo LS Rantho and 158 Others

Appellant

Tebogo Moses Mathiba

Appellant

Samancor Western Chrome Mines

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment and Interlocutory Rulings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of AMCU members for participating in an unprotected strike was substantively and procedurally fair.
  2. 2 Whether compliance with the employer's ultimatum precluded dismissal for strike participation.
  3. 3 Whether the settlement agreement barred challenges to prior final written warnings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court held that Samancor, by issuing an ultimatum to striking employees, waived its right to dismiss those who complied with the ultimatum and returned to work as instructed. The purpose of an ultimatum is to provide employees with a final opportunity to reconsider their conduct and avoid dismissal. Dismissal following compliance with an ultimatum undermines the constitutional right to strike and the orderly process of collective bargaining. The employer's reservation of the right to discipline in the ultimatum did not extend to dismissal for strike participation where compliance occurred. The dismissals were therefore substantively unfair. Mathiba was found not to have...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Dismissals declared substantively unfair. Reinstatement ordered for all appellants, with limited retrospectivity for AMCU members and full retrospectivity for Mathiba. Costs awarded to Mathiba.

Orders

  • Orders 4, 5 and 6 of the Labour Court are set aside and substituted.
  • The dismissals of the individual appellants represented by AMCU and the second appellant were substantively unfair.