Dhlamini And Others v Faraday Wholesale Meat supply (J1953/98) [1999] ZALC 69 (7 May 1999)

Dhlamini And Others v Faraday Wholesale Meat supply (J1953/98) [1999] ZALC 69 (7 May 1999)

The court found that the respondent failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Section 189 of the Labour Relations Act. There was no meaningful consultation with the employees prior to their dismissal, no written disclosure of relevant information, and no opportunity for the employees to make representations. The purported consultation was superficial and did not achieve the purpose of Section 189, which is to seek consensus and avoid or mitigate dismissals. As a result, the dismissal was procedurally unfair. The applicants were entitled to compensation equivalent to twelve months' remuneration, as provided for in Section 194(1) of the Labour Relations Act, since the unfairness...

Citation
[1999] ZALC 69
Parties
Applicant: Zaphaniah Dhlamini; Applicant: Lazerus Sefali; Applicant: Joseph Hlathswayo; Applicant: Phillip Langa; Applicant: Victor Zwane; Applicant: Johannes Ngukuzolak; Applicant: Elphas Sithebe; Applicant: Michael Mpungose; Respondent: Faraday Wholesale Meat Supply
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 May 1999
Case Number
J1953/98
Procedural Posture
Labour Law Application / Judgment
Outcome
The dismissal of the applicants was procedurally unfair. The respondent is ordered to pay each applicant compensation equivalent to twelve months' remuneration and the costs of the application.
Judges
JAJBHAY
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness in Dismissal, Retrenchment Consultation, Section 189 Labour Relations Act, Compensation for Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Procedural Fairness in Dismissal Retrenchment Consultation Section 189 Labour Relations Act Compensation for Unfair Dismissal

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zaphaniah Dhlamini

Applicant

Lazerus Sefali

Applicant

Joseph Hlathswayo

Applicant

Phillip Langa

Applicant

Victor Zwane

Applicant

Johannes Ngukuzolak

Applicant

Elphas Sithebe

Applicant

Michael Mpungose

Applicant

Faraday Wholesale Meat Supply

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Law Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the applicants was effected in accordance with a fair procedure as required by Section 189 of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation for procedural unfairness in their dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Section 189 of the Labour Relations Act. There was no meaningful consultation with the employees prior to their dismissal, no written disclosure of relevant information, and no opportunity for the employees to make representations. The purported consultation was superficial and did not achieve the purpose of Section 189, which is to seek consensus and avoid or mitigate dismissals. As a result, the dismissal was procedurally unfair. The applicants were entitled to compensation equivalent to twelve months' remuneration, as provided for in Section 194(1) of the Labour Relations Act, since the unfairness...

Court Disposition

The dismissal of the applicants was procedurally unfair. The respondent is ordered to pay each applicant compensation equivalent to twelve months' remuneration and the costs of the application.

Orders

  • The dismissal of the applicants was procedurally unfair.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay each applicant an amount equal to twelve months' remuneration, calculated on the basis of the remuneration paid to each applicant on the date of dismissal.