CEPPWAWU obo Konstable and Others v SAFCOL (C378/2001) [2002] ZALC 73; [2003] 3 BLLR 246 (LC) (30 August 2002)

CEPPWAWU obo Konstable and Others v SAFCOL (C378/2001) [2002] ZALC 73; [2003] 3 BLLR 246 (LC) (30 August 2002)

The court found that the year-end function was a discretionary benefit and not a contractual right or term of employment. The regularity of the function did not elevate it to a substantive right, and any variation required consultation, which the respondent undertook. The applicants failed to prove the existence of a right under the collective agreement or RBI agreement, as they did not supply the required list of historical practices or engage the respondent as agreed. The employees' refusal to work constituted an illegal work stoppage, and the disciplinary action taken was procedurally and substantively fair. The allegations of bias in the disciplinary process were found to be...

Citation
[2002] ZALC 73
Parties
Applicant: CEPPWAWU on behalf of D Konstabel & 71 Others; Respondent: SAFCOL
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 August 2002
Case Number
C378/2001
Procedural Posture
Labour Dismissal Application / Trial
Outcome
The dismissal of the employees was procedurally and substantively fair. The applicants' claim is dismissed.
Judges
D Pillay
Legal Topics
Collective Dismissal, Unfair Dismissal, Customary Practice in Employment, Collective Agreement, Disciplinary Procedure, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Collective Dismissal Unfair Dismissal Customary Practice in Employment Collective Agreement Disciplinary Procedure Procedural Fairness

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CEPPWAWU on behalf of D Konstabel & 71 Others

Applicant

SAFCOL

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Dismissal Application / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was there an agreement regarding the time of payment for the year-end function?
  2. 2 Did the employees have a contractual or collective right to time off for the year-end function?
  3. 3 Did the employees' conduct amount to an illegal work stoppage?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the year-end function was a discretionary benefit and not a contractual right or term of employment. The regularity of the function did not elevate it to a substantive right, and any variation required consultation, which the respondent undertook. The applicants failed to prove the existence of a right under the collective agreement or RBI agreement, as they did not supply the required list of historical practices or engage the respondent as agreed. The employees' refusal to work constituted an illegal work stoppage, and the disciplinary action taken was procedurally and substantively fair. The allegations of bias in the disciplinary process were found to be...

Court Disposition

The dismissal of the employees was procedurally and substantively fair. The applicants' claim is dismissed.

Orders

  • The dismissal of the employees was procedurally and substantively fair.
  • The claim of the applicants is dismissed.