Grobler v Tile Afrika Boksburg (Pty) Ltd t/a Tile Afrika Cash n Carry (J2609/99) [2001] ZALC 16; - (1 February 2001)

Grobler v Tile Afrika Boksburg (Pty) Ltd t/a Tile Afrika Cash n Carry (J2609/99) [2001] ZALC 16; - (1 February 2001)

The court found that although the respondent did not fully comply with the written requirements of section 189(3) of the Labour Relations Act, it substantially achieved the objectives of consultation and consensus-seeking. The applicant was informed of the reasons for the transfer, offered alternative employment on equal or better terms, and given opportunities to make representations and counter-proposals. The applicant's refusal to accept the transfer or the monetary settlement was not based on any substantive drawback of the alternatives but rather on his desire to terminate the employment relationship and negotiate for more money. The respondent's policy against family members working...

Citation
[2001] ZALC 16
Parties
Applicant: Grobler P.D; Respondent: Tile Afrika Boksburg (Pty) Ltd t/a Tile Afrika Cash n Carry
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 February 2001
Case Number
J2609/99
Procedural Posture
Labour Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Bruinders
Legal Topics
Operational Requirements Dismissal, Section 189 Consultation, Alternative Employment Offer, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Severance Pay
Labour Law Operational Requirements Dismissal Section 189 Consultation Alternative Employment Offer Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Severance Pay

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grobler P.D

Applicant

Tile Afrika Boksburg (Pty) Ltd t/a Tile Afrika Cash n Carry

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the respondent comply with section 189 of the Labour Relations Act in dismissing the applicant for operational requirements?
  2. 2 Was the dismissal of the applicant substantively and procedurally fair?
  3. 3 Was the applicant entitled to compensation or severance pay following his dismissal?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the respondent did not fully comply with the written requirements of section 189(3) of the Labour Relations Act, it substantially achieved the objectives of consultation and consensus-seeking. The applicant was informed of the reasons for the transfer, offered alternative employment on equal or better terms, and given opportunities to make representations and counter-proposals. The applicant's refusal to accept the transfer or the monetary settlement was not based on any substantive drawback of the alternatives but rather on his desire to terminate the employment relationship and negotiate for more money. The respondent's policy against family members working...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.