Fakude and Others v Kwikot (Pty) Ltd (JS 661/05) [2012] ZALCJHB 169; [2013] 6 BLLR 580 (LC); (2013) 34 ILJ 2024 (LC) (27 December 2012)

Fakude and Others v Kwikot (Pty) Ltd (JS 661/05) [2012] ZALCJHB 169; [2013] 6 BLLR 580 (LC); (2013) 34 ILJ 2024 (LC) (27 December 2012)

The court held that the collective agreement concluded by NUMSA on behalf of the employees was valid and enforceable, binding both union members and identified non-members. The union had statutory authority to act without individual member consent, and the applicants voluntarily joined the union, accepting the consequences of majority decisions. The individual settlement agreements signed by the applicants were not vitiated by duress, as economic pressure alone does not constitute duress under South African law. The applicants failed to establish that the agreements were signed under unlawful or unconscionable circumstances. Consequently, the termination of employment was not a dismissal...

Citation
[2012] ZALCJHB 169
Parties
Applicant: Ivon Fakude & 25 Others; Respondent: Kwikot (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 December 2012
Case Number
JS 661/05
Procedural Posture
Labour Court Stated Case / Point in Limine Regarding Dismissal; Determination of Stated Case Under Rule 33
Outcome
Applicants' claim dismissed with costs; respondent's point in limine upheld.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Collective Agreements, Trade Union Powers, Dismissal Definition, Duress in Settlement, Public Policy Contracts
Labour Law Collective Agreements Trade Union Powers Dismissal Definition Duress in Settlement Public Policy Contracts

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ivon Fakude & 25 Others

Applicant

Kwikot (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Court Stated Case / Point in Limine Regarding Dismissal; Determination of Stated Case Under Rule 33

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the applicants' employment by agreement between the respondent and NUMSA constitutes a dismissal under section 186 of the LRA.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the respondent in requiring applicants to sign settlement agreements for payment of packages amounts to duress sufficient to vitiate the agreements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the collective agreement concluded by NUMSA on behalf of the employees was valid and enforceable, binding both union members and identified non-members. The union had statutory authority to act without individual member consent, and the applicants voluntarily joined the union, accepting the consequences of majority decisions. The individual settlement agreements signed by the applicants were not vitiated by duress, as economic pressure alone does not constitute duress under South African law. The applicants failed to establish that the agreements were signed under unlawful or unconscionable circumstances. Consequently, the termination of employment was not a dismissal...

Court Disposition

Applicants' claim dismissed with costs; respondent's point in limine upheld.

Orders

  • The respondent's point in limine that the applicants were not dismissed is upheld.
  • The applicants' claim is dismissed with costs.