De Almeida v Reeflords Property Development (Pty) Ltd (JS69/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 284; (2020) 41 ILJ 637 (LC) (15 October 2019)

De Almeida v Reeflords Property Development (Pty) Ltd (JS69/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 284; (2020) 41 ILJ 637 (LC) (15 October 2019)

The court found that the applicant's dismissal was not automatically unfair as there was no causal link between her pregnancy and the retrenchment; the restructuring and management changes predated her maternity leave. However, the retrenchment was substantively and procedurally unfair. The employer failed to clarify and honour oral agreements reached during the consultation process regarding training and AA mileage rates for the alternative marketing executive position. The written offer did not reflect the oral consensus, and the employer did not adequately explore or rectify the applicant's concerns in the final consultation meeting. The consultation process broke down due to bad faith...

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 284
Parties
Applicant: Lauren De Almeida; Respondent: Reeflords Property Development (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 October 2019
Case Number
JS69/17
Procedural Posture
Unfair Dismissal Application / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
The applicant's claim of automatically unfair dismissal was dismissed. The retrenchment was found to be substantively and procedurally unfair. Compensation was awarded to the applicant.
Judges
R G Lagrange
Legal Topics
Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Retrenchment, Section 189 Consultation, Alternative Employment, Compensation, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Automatically Unfair Dismissal Retrenchment Section 189 Consultation Alternative Employment Compensation 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lauren De Almeida

Applicant

Reeflords Property Development (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Dismissal Application / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the applicant's dismissal automatically unfair due to pregnancy?
  2. 2 Was the retrenchment substantively and procedurally unfair?
  3. 3 Did the employer act in bad faith by failing to clarify and honour oral agreements regarding alternative employment?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's dismissal was not automatically unfair as there was no causal link between her pregnancy and the retrenchment; the restructuring and management changes predated her maternity leave. However, the retrenchment was substantively and procedurally unfair. The employer failed to clarify and honour oral agreements reached during the consultation process regarding training and AA mileage rates for the alternative marketing executive position. The written offer did not reflect the oral consensus, and the employer did not adequately explore or rectify the applicant's concerns in the final consultation meeting. The consultation process broke down due to bad faith...

Court Disposition

The applicant's claim of automatically unfair dismissal was dismissed. The retrenchment was found to be substantively and procedurally unfair. Compensation was awarded to the applicant.

Orders

  • Within 15 days of the date of this judgment, the respondent must pay the applicant compensation in the amount of six months’ remuneration amounting to R 132,000.00.
  • The respondent must pay the applicant’s costs, except that the applicant must pay the respondent’s costs incurred in preparing and presenting argument in the application for absolution.