Havenga and Another v Equity Aviation Services (Pty) Ltd (J 288/04) [2004] ZALC 26 (9 March 2004)

Havenga and Another v Equity Aviation Services (Pty) Ltd (J 288/04) [2004] ZALC 26 (9 March 2004)

The court found that the applicants, having long service with the respondent, were entitled to expect reinstatement on the same or similar terms after participating in a protected strike. The imposition of a probation period and extended working hours constituted less favourable terms and amounted to unfair dismissal under section 186(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act. The respondent's failure to clarify the non-applicability of the probation clause and its insistence on new contracts justified the applicants' referral to the CCMA. The matter was urgent, and the applicants were justified in seeking relief on an urgent basis. The respondent was interdicted from locking out the applicants...

Citation
[2004] ZALC 26
Parties
Applicant: William Jacobus Havenga; Applicant: Lucas Johannes Kriel; Respondent: Equity Aviation Services (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 March 2004
Case Number
J 288/04
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Order After Urgent Application
Outcome
Application granted; applicants reinstated on terms not less favourable than those previously enjoyed.
Judges
Pakade
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Protected Strike, Lockout, Probation Period, Urgent Interdict
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Protected Strike Lockout Probation Period Urgent Interdict

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Jacobus Havenga

Applicant

Lucas Johannes Kriel

Applicant

Equity Aviation Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Order After Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were unfairly dismissed by being required to sign new contracts with less favourable terms after participating in a protected strike.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to lock out the applicants pending their agreement to amended employment terms.
  3. 3 Whether the matter was urgent and justified deviation from normal procedural requirements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants, having long service with the respondent, were entitled to expect reinstatement on the same or similar terms after participating in a protected strike. The imposition of a probation period and extended working hours constituted less favourable terms and amounted to unfair dismissal under section 186(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act. The respondent's failure to clarify the non-applicability of the probation clause and its insistence on new contracts justified the applicants' referral to the CCMA. The matter was urgent, and the applicants were justified in seeking relief on an urgent basis. The respondent was interdicted from locking out the applicants...

Court Disposition

Application granted; applicants reinstated on terms not less favourable than those previously enjoyed.

Orders

  • This matter is urgent and the provisions relating to forms, time frames and service are dispensed with; the applicants are allowed to bring this application as a matter of urgency.
  • The respondent is interdicted and restrained from locking out the applicants or from in any way hindering or preventing the applicants from returning to work and tendering their services.