Banks and Another v Coca-cola South Africa, A division od Coca-cola Africa (Pty) Ltd (J 1114/07) [2007] ZALC 175; [2007] 10 BLLR 929 (LC); (2007) 28 ILJ 2748 (LC) (29 June 2007)

Banks and Another v Coca-cola South Africa, A division od Coca-cola Africa (Pty) Ltd (J 1114/07) [2007] ZALC 175; [2007] 10 BLLR 929 (LC); (2007) 28 ILJ 2748 (LC) (29 June 2007)

The Labour Court held that the application was brought at a late stage, after the breakdown of the consultation process and after the employment relationship had become acrimonious. There were material disputes of fact regarding whether the Respondent complied with procedural fairness, which could not be resolved on the papers. The Court found that the remedies of interdicting dismissal or compelling fresh consultation were no longer appropriate. Instead, the only potentially available remedy was compensation, but this could not be determined without oral evidence. The matter was referred to the trial roll for hearing of oral evidence and postponed sine die, to be heard simultaneously...

Citation
[2007] ZALC 175
Parties
Applicant: Andrew Banks; Applicant: David Brown; Respondent: Coca-cola South Africa, A division of Coca-cola Africa (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 June 2007
Case Number
J 1114/07
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application in Terms of Section 189 A(13) of the Labour Relations Act, Brought as a Matter of Urgency and Postponed for Hearing of Oral Evidence.
Outcome
Application for urgent relief in terms of section 189A(13) postponed sine die and referred to trial roll for oral evidence; costs reserved.
Judges
A Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Retrenchment Procedure, Section 189a Application, Procedural Fairness, Compensation for Unfair Dismissal, Urgent Interdict, Severance Package Dispute
Labour Law Civil Procedure Retrenchment Procedure Section 189a Application Procedural Fairness Compensation for Unfair Dismissal Urgent Interdict Severance Package 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Banks

Applicant

David Brown

Applicant

Coca-cola South Africa, A division of Coca-cola Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application in Terms of Section 189 A(13) of the Labour Relations Act, Brought as a Matter of Urgency and Postponed for Hearing of Oral Evidence.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent complied with a fair procedure in terms of section 189A of the Labour Relations Act prior to dismissing the Applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicants are entitled to an interdict preventing their dismissal and an order directing the Respondent to recommence the consultation process.
  3. 3 Whether compensation is the appropriate remedy given the stage of the proceedings and the breakdown in consultation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court held that the application was brought at a late stage, after the breakdown of the consultation process and after the employment relationship had become acrimonious. There were material disputes of fact regarding whether the Respondent complied with procedural fairness, which could not be resolved on the papers. The Court found that the remedies of interdicting dismissal or compelling fresh consultation were no longer appropriate. Instead, the only potentially available remedy was compensation, but this could not be determined without oral evidence. The matter was referred to the trial roll for hearing of oral evidence and postponed sine die, to be heard simultaneously...

Court Disposition

Application for urgent relief in terms of section 189A(13) postponed sine die and referred to trial roll for oral evidence; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The application in terms of section 189A(13) is referred to the trial roll in terms of Rule 7(7)(b) for the hearing of oral evidence in relation to the disputes of fact appearing on the papers.
  • The application in terms of section 189A(13) and the referral to oral evidence in terms of Rule 7(7)(b) is postponed sine die.