Bayane and Another v Fischer Tube Technik SA (JS 415/17) [2023] ZALCJHB 12 (3 February 2023)

Bayane and Another v Fischer Tube Technik SA (JS 415/17) [2023] ZALCJHB 12 (3 February 2023)

The court found that the dismissal of the applicants was procedurally fair due to extensive consultation and union involvement. However, the dismissal was substantively unfair because the respondent failed to justify why horizontal bumping was not a viable option and insisted on vertical bumping without persuasive evidence. The agreed selection criteria of LIFO and bumping were not properly implemented, and the applicants were not offered reasonable alternative positions at their existing salaries. As a result, the applicants are entitled to compensation equivalent to ten months' salary each.

Citation
[2023] ZALCJHB 12
Parties
Applicant: Edmore Bayane; Applicant: Ben Bokaba; Respondent: Fischer Tube Technik SA
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 February 2023
Case Number
JS 415/17
Procedural Posture
Dismissal Dispute / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Dismissal of the applicants was procedurally fair but substantively unfair. Compensation awarded.
Judges
Ntsoane
Legal Topics
Retrenchment, Operational Requirements, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Bumping, Last in First Out
Labour Law Retrenchment Operational Requirements Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Bumping Last in First Out

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edmore Bayane

Applicant

Ben Bokaba

Applicant

Fischer Tube Technik SA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Dismissal Dispute / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the dismissal of the applicants procedurally and substantively fair under section 189 of the Labour Relations Act?
  2. 2 Did the employer apply fair selection criteria, specifically LIFO and bumping, during the retrenchment process?
  3. 3 Was the refusal to offer horizontal bumping justified, and did it render the dismissal substantively unfair?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the dismissal of the applicants was procedurally fair due to extensive consultation and union involvement. However, the dismissal was substantively unfair because the respondent failed to justify why horizontal bumping was not a viable option and insisted on vertical bumping without persuasive evidence. The agreed selection criteria of LIFO and bumping were not properly implemented, and the applicants were not offered reasonable alternative positions at their existing salaries. As a result, the applicants are entitled to compensation equivalent to ten months' salary each.

Court Disposition

Dismissal of the applicants was procedurally fair but substantively unfair. Compensation awarded.

Orders

  • The dismissal of the individual applicants on the basis of the respondent’s operational requirements was procedurally fair but substantively unfair.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay each applicant compensation equivalent to ten months’ salary.