G E Security (Africa) v Airey and Others (CA 02/2009) [2011] ZALAC 37 (28 April 2011)

G E Security (Africa) v Airey and Others (CA 02/2009) [2011] ZALAC 37 (28 April 2011)

The Court found that the appellant was not obliged to consider the respondents for positions for which they did not apply. The pre-trial minute established that unsuccessful applicants would be placed in a pool and considered for any remaining vacant positions, not for all positions regardless of application. The respondents were bound by this admission, and there was no formal application to withdraw it. The interpretation advanced by the respondents was inconsistent with the section 189 notice, the consultation process, and common sense in the context of agreed selection criteria. The dismissal of the respondents was therefore both substantively and procedurally fair.

Citation
[2011] ZALAC 37
Parties
Appellant: G E Security (Africa); Respondent: Roger Airey; Respondent: David Denoon-Stevens; Respondent: Vincent Watters
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 April 2011
Case Number
CA02/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Labour Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of the court a quo set aside; cross-appeal dismissed.
Judges
Waglay, Mlambo, Davis
Legal Topics
Retrenchment Procedure, Selection Criteria, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Pre Trial Admissions
Labour Law Civil Procedure Retrenchment Procedure Selection Criteria Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Pre Trial Admissions

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G E Security (Africa)

Appellant

Roger Airey

Respondent

David Denoon-Stevens

Respondent

Vincent Watters

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Labour Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the appellant obliged under the agreed selection criteria to consider the respondents for all positions for which they were eligible, regardless of whether they applied for those positions?
  2. 2 If the appellant breached the agreement on selection criteria, did this render the dismissal substantively unfair rather than merely procedurally unfair?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the appellant was not obliged to consider the respondents for positions for which they did not apply. The pre-trial minute established that unsuccessful applicants would be placed in a pool and considered for any remaining vacant positions, not for all positions regardless of application. The respondents were bound by this admission, and there was no formal application to withdraw it. The interpretation advanced by the respondents was inconsistent with the section 189 notice, the consultation process, and common sense in the context of agreed selection criteria. The dismissal of the respondents was therefore both substantively and procedurally fair.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of the court a quo set aside; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, excluding the preparation and perusal costs of 75% of the record.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with: 'The dismissal of the applicants was both substantively and procedurally fair. The applicants are ordered to pay the respondent’s costs.'