Jarvis v Airports Company South Africa (JS 941/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 84 (4 March 2015)

Jarvis v Airports Company South Africa (JS 941/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 84 (4 March 2015)

The court found that the respondent had complied with the settlement agreement by reinstating the applicant, albeit not in her previous position, which had been made redundant due to operational requirements. The applicant was offered a reasonable alternative position at the same level and remuneration, which she unreasonably refused. Her refusal to participate in section 189 consultation meetings frustrated the retrenchment process, and she effectively waived her rights to challenge procedural fairness. The court held that the respondent was entitled to engage the applicant in retrenchment consultations following reinstatement, and that the retrenchment was both procedurally and...

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 84
Parties
Applicant: Boipelo Shirley Jarvis; Respondent: Airports Company South Africa
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 March 2015
Case Number
JS 941/12
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Stated Case
Outcome
Application dismissed. All claims by the applicant are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Settlement Agreement Enforcement, Reinstatement, Retrenchment, Unfair Dismissal, Section 189 Consultation, Payment of Arrears
Labour Law Civil Procedure Settlement Agreement Enforcement Reinstatement Retrenchment Unfair Dismissal Section 189 Consultation Payment of Arrears

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boipelo Shirley Jarvis

Applicant

Airports Company South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Stated Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlement agreement concluded on 4 June 2012 should be made an order of court.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent complied with the terms of the settlement agreement, specifically regarding reinstatement.
  3. 3 Whether the termination of the applicant's employment constituted an unfair dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent had complied with the settlement agreement by reinstating the applicant, albeit not in her previous position, which had been made redundant due to operational requirements. The applicant was offered a reasonable alternative position at the same level and remuneration, which she unreasonably refused. Her refusal to participate in section 189 consultation meetings frustrated the retrenchment process, and she effectively waived her rights to challenge procedural fairness. The court held that the respondent was entitled to engage the applicant in retrenchment consultations following reinstatement, and that the retrenchment was both procedurally and...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. All claims by the applicant are dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applicant’s application in terms of section 158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act is dismissed.
  • The applicant’s claim in respect of alleged non-payments of amounts due in accordance with the settlement agreement entered into between the parties on 4 June 2012 is dismissed.