Engelbrecht v Bachique 705 (Pty) Ltd t/a The New House of Busby (J 606/20) [2020] ZALCJHB 252 (3 August 2020)

Engelbrecht v Bachique 705 (Pty) Ltd t/a The New House of Busby (J 606/20) [2020] ZALCJHB 252 (3 August 2020)

The court found that the respondent failed to comply with a fair procedure in retrenching the applicant, as there was no meaningful consultation and the decision to relocate the Distribution Centre was not properly communicated. The offer of reinstatement was not bona fide, given the closure of the applicant's workplace and the allocation of her role to others. The applicant's rejection of the reinstatement offer was reasonable under the circumstances. As the remedies of compelling fair procedure, interdicting dismissal, or reinstatement were not appropriate, the court held that compensation was justified under section 189A(13)(d) of the LRA. The court determined that compensation...

Citation
[2020] ZALCJHB 252
Parties
Applicant: Bronwyn Engelbrecht; Respondent: Bachique 705 (Pty) Ltd t/a The New House of Busby
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 August 2020
Case Number
J 606/20
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Opposed Urgent Application Under Section 189 A(13) of the Lra; Judgment Delivered After Hearing on 16 July 2020
Outcome
Application granted; compensation and costs awarded to the applicant.
Judges
Nkutha-Nkontwana
Legal Topics
Retrenchment Procedure, Section 189a Lra, Compensation for Procedural Unfairness, Reinstatement Offer, Costs Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Retrenchment Procedure Section 189a Lra Compensation for Procedural Unfairness Reinstatement Offer Costs Award

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bronwyn Engelbrecht

Applicant

Bachique 705 (Pty) Ltd t/a The New House of Busby

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Opposed Urgent Application Under Section 189 A(13) of the Lra; Judgment Delivered After Hearing on 16 July 2020

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent complied with a fair procedure in retrenching the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to reinstatement or compensation under section 189A(13) of the LRA.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's offer of reinstatement was bona fide.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to comply with a fair procedure in retrenching the applicant, as there was no meaningful consultation and the decision to relocate the Distribution Centre was not properly communicated. The offer of reinstatement was not bona fide, given the closure of the applicant's workplace and the allocation of her role to others. The applicant's rejection of the reinstatement offer was reasonable under the circumstances. As the remedies of compelling fair procedure, interdicting dismissal, or reinstatement were not appropriate, the court held that compensation was justified under section 189A(13)(d) of the LRA. The court determined that compensation...

Court Disposition

Application granted; compensation and costs awarded to the applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant compensation equivalent to three months’ salary, which is R346,666.65.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant’s costs on party and party scale.