Food And General Workers Union and Another v Fedelity Guards Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Another (P117/98) [1999] ZALC 56 (14 April 1999)

Food And General Workers Union and Another v Fedelity Guards Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Another (P117/98) [1999] ZALC 56 (14 April 1999)

The court found that the respondent had substantive grounds for retrenchment due to the loss of the Rainbow contract. The respondent made reasonable efforts to consult and offer alternatives to retrenchment, but the second applicant insisted only on a return to MBSA as junior supervisor and refused all other options, including temporary downgraded positions. The court held that the recognition agreement did not entitle the second applicant to union consultation unless his membership was known, which was not established. Although the respondent did not consult on the severance package until after retrenchment, this was mitigated by the applicant's refusal to consider alternatives. The...

Citation
[1999] ZALC 56
Parties
Applicant: Food And General Workers Union; Applicant: Tozamile Edmund Ncapayi; Respondent: Fidelity Guards Holdings (Pty) Ltd t/a Pritchard Cleaning
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 April 1999
Case Number
P117/98
Procedural Posture
Labour Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.
Judges
GON
Legal Topics
Retrenchment Procedure, Fair Dismissal, Consultation Requirements, Severance Pay, Selection Criteria
Labour Law Retrenchment Procedure Fair Dismissal Consultation Requirements Severance Pay Selection Criteria

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Food And General Workers Union

Applicant

Tozamile Edmund Ncapayi

Applicant

Fidelity Guards Holdings (Pty) Ltd t/a Pritchard Cleaning

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the dismissal of the second applicant for operational requirements procedurally and substantively fair?
  2. 2 Did the respondent comply with the retrenchment procedure and consultation obligations under the Labour Relations Act and the recognition agreement?
  3. 3 Was the second applicant entitled to union consultation and protection under the recognition agreement?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent had substantive grounds for retrenchment due to the loss of the Rainbow contract. The respondent made reasonable efforts to consult and offer alternatives to retrenchment, but the second applicant insisted only on a return to MBSA as junior supervisor and refused all other options, including temporary downgraded positions. The court held that the recognition agreement did not entitle the second applicant to union consultation unless his membership was known, which was not established. Although the respondent did not consult on the severance package until after retrenchment, this was mitigated by the applicant's refusal to consider alternatives. The...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the respondent's costs.