Cold Chain (Pty) Ltd v Food and Allied Workers Union (JA134/18) [2020] ZALAC 16; (2020) 41 ILJ 2067 (LAC) (18 May 2020)

Cold Chain (Pty) Ltd v Food and Allied Workers Union (JA134/18) [2020] ZALAC 16; (2020) 41 ILJ 2067 (LAC) (18 May 2020)

The Labour Appeal Court held that the Labour Court's order declaring the dismissal notices invalid and ordering reinstatement was unsustainable in law. The Constitutional Court in Steenkamp v Edcon clarified that procedural non-compliance with section 189A does not render a dismissal invalid; the LRA provides specific remedies for such breaches, namely compelling compliance with fair procedures, not a declaration of invalidity or automatic reinstatement. The respondent did not pursue the appropriate remedy under the LRA, and given the significant delay since the dismissals, reinstatement pending procedural compliance was not appropriate. The appeal was upheld and the application dismissed...

Citation
[2020] ZALAC 16
Parties
Appellant: Cold Chain (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Food and Allied Workers Union
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 May 2020
Case Number
JA134/18
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Labour Court order set aside and replaced with dismissal of the application with costs.
Judges
Davis, Musi, Sutherland
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Operational Requirements, Procedural Fairness, Invalid Dismissal, Section 189a Application, Reinstatement, Costs Order
Labour Law Dismissal for Operational Requirements Procedural Fairness Invalid Dismissal Section 189a Application Reinstatement Costs Order

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cold Chain (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Food and Allied Workers Union

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notices of termination issued by the appellant were invalid and of no legal force and effect under the LRA.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's members were entitled to reinstatement until procedural requirements were met.
  3. 3 Whether non-compliance with procedural requirements renders a dismissal invalid under the LRA.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court held that the Labour Court's order declaring the dismissal notices invalid and ordering reinstatement was unsustainable in law. The Constitutional Court in Steenkamp v Edcon clarified that procedural non-compliance with section 189A does not render a dismissal invalid; the LRA provides specific remedies for such breaches, namely compelling compliance with fair procedures, not a declaration of invalidity or automatic reinstatement. The respondent did not pursue the appropriate remedy under the LRA, and given the significant delay since the dismissals, reinstatement pending procedural compliance was not appropriate. The appeal was upheld and the application dismissed...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Labour Court order set aside and replaced with dismissal of the application with costs.

Orders

  • The order of the Labour Court is set aside.
  • The application in terms of section 189A(13) of the LRA is dismissed with costs.