Enslin v Lonmin Platinum Comprising Western Platinum Limited (JS1166/13) [2018] ZALCJHB 292 (20 September 2018)

Enslin v Lonmin Platinum Comprising Western Platinum Limited (JS1166/13) [2018] ZALCJHB 292 (20 September 2018)

The Court found that the respondent employed more than 50 employees and contemplated a reduction of 83 employees, which qualifies as a large-scale retrenchment under section 189A(1)(a)(v) of the Labour Relations Act. Although the initial section 189(3) notice did not specify the number of employees likely to be affected, this defect was rectified during the consultation process when the respondent disclosed the contemplated reduction. The appointment of a facilitator and the nature of the consultation confirmed the applicability of section 189A. In terms of section 189A(18), the Labour Court is expressly excluded from adjudicating disputes about procedural fairness in such dismissals....

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 292
Parties
Applicant: Wessel Enslin; Respondent: Lonmin Platinum Comprising Western Platinum Limited
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 September 2018
Case Number
JS1166/13
Procedural Posture
Labour Law Trial / Jurisdictional Ruling Prior to Trial on Substantive Fairness
Outcome
The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the procedural fairness of the applicant's dismissal; the matter will proceed to trial on substantive fairness only.
Judges
D Mahosi
Legal Topics
Retrenchment, Procedural Fairness, Section 189a, Jurisdiction, Large Scale Retrenchment
Labour Law Retrenchment Procedural Fairness Section 189a Jurisdiction Large Scale Retrenchment

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wessel Enslin

Applicant

Lonmin Platinum Comprising Western Platinum Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Law Trial / Jurisdictional Ruling Prior to Trial on Substantive Fairness

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Labour Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate the procedural fairness of the applicant's dismissal based on operational requirements?
  2. 2 Is section 189A of the Labour Relations Act applicable to the retrenchment in question?
  3. 3 Did the respondent comply with the requirements for disclosure under section 189(3) of the Labour Relations Act?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the respondent employed more than 50 employees and contemplated a reduction of 83 employees, which qualifies as a large-scale retrenchment under section 189A(1)(a)(v) of the Labour Relations Act. Although the initial section 189(3) notice did not specify the number of employees likely to be affected, this defect was rectified during the consultation process when the respondent disclosed the contemplated reduction. The appointment of a facilitator and the nature of the consultation confirmed the applicability of section 189A. In terms of section 189A(18), the Labour Court is expressly excluded from adjudicating disputes about procedural fairness in such dismissals....

Court Disposition

The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the procedural fairness of the applicant's dismissal; the matter will proceed to trial on substantive fairness only.

Orders

  • This Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute about the procedural fairness of the applicant’s dismissal based on the employer’s operational requirements.
  • The matter is to be set down for trial for hearing of evidence in relation to the substantive fairness of the applicant’s dismissal on dates to be agreed between the parties and the Registrar.