Chemical Paper Printing v Glass and Aluminium 2000 (Pty) Limited (J2052/99) [2000] ZALC 110 (29 September 2000)

Chemical Paper Printing v Glass and Aluminium 2000 (Pty) Limited (J2052/99) [2000] ZALC 110 (29 September 2000)

The Court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the employee resigned voluntarily and was not dismissed. The evidence of the employer, corroborated by the NOESA representative and the Department of Labour inspector, established that the employee expressed his desire to leave and that his resignation was formalised. The applicant's version of an automatically unfair dismissal was not supported by sufficiently cogent evidence. The Court accepted that while there were elements of racial discrimination and antagonism towards unionisation, these did not constitute the operative reason for termination in this instance. The docking of pay was found to be unlawful but not central to the...

Citation
[2000] ZALC 110
Parties
Applicant: Chemical Paper Printing; Respondent: Glass and Aluminium 2000 (Pty) Limited
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 2000
Case Number
J2052/99
Procedural Posture
Labour Dismissal Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
Pillay
Legal Topics
Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Trade Union Activity, Racial Discrimination, Resignation Vs Dismissal, Burden of Proof, Balance of Probabilities
Labour Law Automatically Unfair Dismissal Trade Union Activity Racial Discrimination Resignation Vs Dismissal Burden of Proof Balance of Probabilities

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chemical Paper Printing

Applicant

Glass and Aluminium 2000 (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Dismissal Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the employee dismissed or did he resign voluntarily.
  2. 2 Did the employer discriminate against the employee on racial grounds.
  3. 3 Was the alleged dismissal automatically unfair under section 187 of the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the employee resigned voluntarily and was not dismissed. The evidence of the employer, corroborated by the NOESA representative and the Department of Labour inspector, established that the employee expressed his desire to leave and that his resignation was formalised. The applicant's version of an automatically unfair dismissal was not supported by sufficiently cogent evidence. The Court accepted that while there were elements of racial discrimination and antagonism towards unionisation, these did not constitute the operative reason for termination in this instance. The docking of pay was found to be unlawful but not central to the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.