Gray Security Services (Western Cape) (Pty) Ltd and v Transport and General Workers Union (C238/99) [1999] ZALC 172 (3 December 1999)
The Labour Court found that the employer's instruction to transfer the employees from Alexkor to Cape Town was not lawful or reasonable, given the lack of contractual authority for unilateral transfer and the absence of meaningful consultation. The employer's reliance on operational requirements was misplaced, as...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1999] ZALC 172
- Parties
- Applicant: Gray Security Services (Western Cape) (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: N Cloete N.O.; Respondent: Transport & General Workers Union
- Court
- Labour Court
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 3 December 1999
- Case Number
- C238/99
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Judgment After Review of Arbitration Award
- Outcome
- Application for review refused; arbitration award reinstating employees upheld.
- Judges
- MacRobert
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Dismissal, Transfer of Employees, Procedural Fairness, Operational Requirements, Disciplinary Inquiry
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Gray Security Services (Western Cape) (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
N Cloete N.O.
Respondent
Transport & General Workers Union
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Review of Arbitration Award
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the dismissal of the five employees for refusing a transfer was substantively and procedurally unfair.
- 2 Whether the employer had the contractual right to transfer employees without their consent.
- 3 Whether the employer's instruction to transfer was lawful and reasonable under the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The Labour Court found that the employer's instruction to transfer the employees from Alexkor to Cape Town was not lawful or reasonable, given the lack of contractual authority for unilateral transfer and the absence of meaningful consultation. The employer's reliance on operational requirements was misplaced, as the issue was incorrectly categorised as misconduct. The disciplinary process was procedurally flawed, and the employer failed to honour its own undertakings to consult. The Commissioner’s award, despite some errors, was justifiable on the permissible grounds identified, and the dismissals were both substantively and procedurally unfair. The application for review was refused,...
Court Disposition
Application for review refused; arbitration award reinstating employees upheld.
Orders
- The application is refused.
- The first respondent's findings and reasons for his decision are upheld to the extent indicated in the body of the judgment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment