AMCU obo Rantho and Others v Samancor Western Chrome Mines (JS2015/14, JS406/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 405 (8 November 2017)
The court found that the applicants, by entering into the settlement agreement, acknowledged the validity of the final written warnings issued in June and July 2013 and are precluded from challenging them. The agreement was reached after consideration of disciplinary records and the context of the industrial action. The withdrawal of appeals does not amount to a waiver of the right to challenge the procedural fairness of the dismissals, as the applicants and the union must be afforded an opportunity to explain their non-attendance and withdrawal in light of reserved rights. The identification of the 159 employees should have been resolved during settlement negotiations, and the court will...
- Citation
- [2017] ZALCJHB 405
- Parties
- Applicant: AMCU obo L.S. Rantho & 158 Others; Applicant: Tebogo Moses Mathiba; Respondent: Samancor Western Chrome Mines
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 8 November 2017
- Case Number
- JS2015/14, JS406/14
- Procedural Posture
- Labour Law Application / Preliminary Point in Limine
- Outcome
- The respondent's first and third preliminary points are upheld, precluding the applicants from challenging the validity of the final written warnings and from leading evidence on identification as the 159 employees. The second preliminary point is dismissed, permitting the applicants to challenge the procedural...
- Judges
- E Tlhotlhalemaje
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Dismissal, Settlement Agreement, Final Written Warning, Procedural Fairness, Strike Action, Waiver of Rights
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
AMCU obo L.S. Rantho & 158 Others
Applicant
Tebogo Moses Mathiba
Applicant
Samancor Western Chrome Mines
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Labour Law Application / Preliminary Point in Limine
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are precluded by the settlement agreement from challenging the validity of final written warnings issued in June and July 2013.
- 2 Whether the applicants are barred from challenging the procedural fairness of their dismissals on 13 December 2013 due to withdrawal of appeals.
- 3 Whether the applicants may lead evidence to determine if they are the 159 employees identified in the settlement agreement.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants, by entering into the settlement agreement, acknowledged the validity of the final written warnings issued in June and July 2013 and are precluded from challenging them. The agreement was reached after consideration of disciplinary records and the context of the industrial action. The withdrawal of appeals does not amount to a waiver of the right to challenge the procedural fairness of the dismissals, as the applicants and the union must be afforded an opportunity to explain their non-attendance and withdrawal in light of reserved rights. The identification of the 159 employees should have been resolved during settlement negotiations, and the court will...
Court Disposition
The respondent's first and third preliminary points are upheld, precluding the applicants from challenging the validity of the final written warnings and from leading evidence on identification as the 159 employees. The second preliminary point is dismissed, permitting the applicants to challenge the procedural...
Orders
- The applicants are precluded from challenging the validity of the final written warnings issued in June and July 2013.
- The applicants are permitted to challenge the procedural fairness of their dismissals on 13 December 2013.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment