FEDCRAW and Others v Jane Furse Builders Supply CC (JS727/2017) [2019] ZALCJHB 79 (18 April 2019)

FEDCRAW and Others v Jane Furse Builders Supply CC (JS727/2017) [2019] ZALCJHB 79 (18 April 2019)

The applicants failed to discharge the evidential burden required to establish that their dismissal was automatically unfair under section 187(1)(d) of the LRA. The court found that the real reason for dismissal was misconduct, as the applicants conceded to the incidents leading to their charges and did not dispute the evidence presented by the respondent. There was no credible evidence that the applicants were victimised for participating in lawful union activities. The respondent's withdrawal of organisational rights was due to declining union membership, not anti-union animus. The applicants were not shop stewards, and there was no evidence of recognised union activities at the time of...

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 79
Parties
Applicant: FEDCRAW; Applicant: Alfred Mahlatsi; Applicant: Amos Phasha; Applicant: David Mokoatjane; Respondent: Jane Furse Builders Supply CC
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 April 2019
Case Number
JS 727/2017
Procedural Posture
Trial / Judgment
Outcome
The applicants' claim of automatically unfair dismissal is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Nkutha-Nkontwana
Legal Topics
Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Trade Union Rights, Misconduct, Section 187 Lra, Organisational Rights
Labour Law Automatically Unfair Dismissal Trade Union Rights Misconduct Section 187 Lra Organisational Rights

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FEDCRAW

Applicant

Alfred Mahlatsi

Applicant

Amos Phasha

Applicant

David Mokoatjane

Applicant

Jane Furse Builders Supply CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the applicant employees was automatically unfair in terms of section 187(1)(d) of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were dismissed for participating in lawful trade union activities or for misconduct.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent victimised the applicants for union membership.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to discharge the evidential burden required to establish that their dismissal was automatically unfair under section 187(1)(d) of the LRA. The court found that the real reason for dismissal was misconduct, as the applicants conceded to the incidents leading to their charges and did not dispute the evidence presented by the respondent. There was no credible evidence that the applicants were victimised for participating in lawful union activities. The respondent's withdrawal of organisational rights was due to declining union membership, not anti-union animus. The applicants were not shop stewards, and there was no evidence of recognised union activities at the time of...

Court Disposition

The applicants' claim of automatically unfair dismissal is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicants’ automatically unfair dismissal claim is dismissed with costs.