Diarmid v Securicor Gray (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd (J3865/00) [2003] ZALC 69 (6 June 2003)

Diarmid v Securicor Gray (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd (J3865/00) [2003] ZALC 69 (6 June 2003)

The court found that the respondent's decision to retrench the applicant was taken before any meaningful consultation, rendering the process procedurally unfair. The respondent failed to adequately consider alternatives to dismissal and did not consult about bumping or provide fair selection criteria. The applicant was given assurances about the necessity of his position shortly before retrenchment, and the respondent did not protect him from redundancy after his recent appointment. The court held that both the substantive and procedural aspects of the dismissal were unfair. The statutory minimum severance pay was applicable, but the applicant's claim for profit share was contractual and...

Citation
[2003] ZALC 69
Parties
Applicant: Russell Mc Diarmid; Respondent: Securicor Gray (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 June 2003
Case Number
J3865/00
Procedural Posture
Unfair Dismissal Application / Trial Judgment
Outcome
The applicant's dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair.
Judges
Zilwa
Legal Topics
Retrenchment, Section 189 Consultation, Selection Criteria, Severance Pay, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness
Labour Law Retrenchment Section 189 Consultation Selection Criteria Severance Pay Procedural Fairness Substantive 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Russell Mc Diarmid

Applicant

Securicor Gray (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Dismissal Application / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the applicant's dismissal based on operational requirements both substantively and procedurally unfair?
  2. 2 Did the respondent comply with the consultation requirements under section 189 of the Labour Relations Act?
  3. 3 Was the selection criteria for retrenchment fair and objective?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's decision to retrench the applicant was taken before any meaningful consultation, rendering the process procedurally unfair. The respondent failed to adequately consider alternatives to dismissal and did not consult about bumping or provide fair selection criteria. The applicant was given assurances about the necessity of his position shortly before retrenchment, and the respondent did not protect him from redundancy after his recent appointment. The court held that both the substantive and procedural aspects of the dismissal were unfair. The statutory minimum severance pay was applicable, but the applicant's claim for profit share was contractual and...

Court Disposition

The applicant's dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant compensation equivalent to 12 months' salary, being R396,000.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the matter, including costs of all postponements.