Cloete v Evander Gold Mines Limited (J1152/98) [2000] ZALC 141; [2001] 4 BLLR 433 (LC) (6 December 2000)

Cloete v Evander Gold Mines Limited (J1152/98) [2000] ZALC 141; [2001] 4 BLLR 433 (LC) (6 December 2000)

The court found that the respondent complied with its procedural obligations under section 189 of the Labour Relations Act by consulting with the applicant's union, OASA, regarding the retrenchment. The retrenchment agreement was negotiated and signed with the unions, and the applicant's position was specifically discussed and agreed to be made redundant. There was no legal requirement for the respondent to consult individually with the applicant as a union member. The court rejected the applicant's attempt to introduce new grounds for procedural unfairness during argument, holding that he was bound by his statement of claim and pre-trial minute. The respondent provided severance pay and...

Citation
[2000] ZALC 141
Parties
Applicant: Michael Cloete; Respondent: Evander Gold Mines Limited
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 December 2000
Case Number
J1152/98
Procedural Posture
Labour Unfair Dismissal / Trial
Outcome
Referral dismissed with costs.
Judges
Francis
Legal Topics
Retrenchment, Procedural Fairness, Consultation With Union, Severance Pay, Selection Criteria, Section 189 Lra
Labour Law Retrenchment Procedural Fairness Consultation With Union Severance Pay Selection Criteria Section 189 Lra

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Cloete

Applicant

Evander Gold Mines Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Unfair Dismissal / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the applicant's retrenchment procedurally fair under section 189 of the Labour Relations Act?
  2. 2 Did the respondent comply with its consultation obligations towards the applicant as a union member?
  3. 3 Was the applicant properly considered for alternative positions and selection criteria such as LIFO?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent complied with its procedural obligations under section 189 of the Labour Relations Act by consulting with the applicant's union, OASA, regarding the retrenchment. The retrenchment agreement was negotiated and signed with the unions, and the applicant's position was specifically discussed and agreed to be made redundant. There was no legal requirement for the respondent to consult individually with the applicant as a union member. The court rejected the applicant's attempt to introduce new grounds for procedural unfairness during argument, holding that he was bound by his statement of claim and pre-trial minute. The respondent provided severance pay and...

Court Disposition

Referral dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicant's referral is dismissed with costs.