Fordham v OK Bazaars (1929) Ltd (J1374/97) [1997] ZALC 13 (9 December 1997)

Fordham v OK Bazaars (1929) Ltd (J1374/97) [1997] ZALC 13 (9 December 1997)

The court held that the order previously granted was final, compelling the respondent to consult with the applicant in terms of section 189 of the Labour Relations Act. The intention of the order was not to suspend, rescind, or set aside the retrenchment, nor to reinstate the applicant. The court found that it could not vary the order to grant reinstatement or a status quo remedy, as the applicant had an effective alternative remedy through the statutory conciliation process at the CCMA. The absence of a status quo procedure in the 1995 Act was deliberate, and the court refused to introduce such a procedure by way of urgent application. The dispute regarding whether proper consultation...

Citation
[1997] ZALC 13
Parties
Applicant: E A Fordham; Respondent: OK Bazaars (1929) Limited
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 December 1997
Case Number
J1374/97
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Variation of Interim Order; Final Determination
Outcome
Application for variation of the order is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Revelas
Legal Topics
Retrenchment Consultation, Section 189 Procedure, Urgent Interdict, Status Quo Orders
Labour Law Civil Procedure Retrenchment Consultation Section 189 Procedure Urgent Interdict Status Quo Orders

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

Parties

E A Fordham

Applicant

OK Bazaars (1929) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Variation of Interim Order; Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was properly consulted in terms of section 189 of the Labour Relations Act prior to retrenchment.
  2. 2 Whether the Labour Court can vary its previous order to reinstate the applicant or suspend the retrenchment.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has an effective alternative remedy under the Labour Relations Act, such as referral to the CCMA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the order previously granted was final, compelling the respondent to consult with the applicant in terms of section 189 of the Labour Relations Act. The intention of the order was not to suspend, rescind, or set aside the retrenchment, nor to reinstate the applicant. The court found that it could not vary the order to grant reinstatement or a status quo remedy, as the applicant had an effective alternative remedy through the statutory conciliation process at the CCMA. The absence of a status quo procedure in the 1995 Act was deliberate, and the court refused to introduce such a procedure by way of urgent application. The dispute regarding whether proper consultation...

Court Disposition

Application for variation of the order is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The rule nisi granted on 9 December 1997 is discharged with the respondent to pay the costs.
  • The application for variation under case number J1347/97 is dismissed with the applicant to pay the costs.