Keil v Foodgrow,a division of Lesiurenet Limited (J428/97) [1998] ZALC 42 (26 June 1998)

Keil v Foodgrow,a division of Lesiurenet Limited (J428/97) [1998] ZALC 42 (26 June 1998)

The court found that the respondent failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Section 189 of the Labour Relations Act by not providing the applicant with sufficient information regarding her selection for retrenchment and by failing to engage in a meaningful consultation process. The respondent's reliance on the applicant's length of service from 1 January 1997, rather than from 1 February 1993, was incorrect, as Section 197(2) required recognition of her full service period. The selection criteria applied were flawed, and the consultation process was not adequately conducted. As a result, the dismissal was procedurally unfair, and the applicant was entitled to severance pay...

Citation
[1998] ZALC 42
Parties
Applicant: Carol Keil; Respondent: Foodgro, a division of LeisureNet Limited
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 June 1998
Case Number
J428/97
Procedural Posture
Dismissal Application / Judgment
Outcome
The dismissal of the applicant was declared procedurally unfair. The respondent was ordered to pay severance pay and compensation to the applicant, and to pay her legal costs.
Judges
Mlambo
Legal Topics
Retrenchment, Section 189 Consultation, Length of Service, Severance Pay, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Retrenchment Section 189 Consultation Length of Service Severance Pay Procedural Fairness

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carol Keil

Applicant

Foodgro, a division of LeisureNet Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Dismissal Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's dismissal for operational requirements was procedurally fair.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent complied with Section 189 of the Labour Relations Act in the retrenchment process.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's length of service was correctly considered in the selection for retrenchment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Section 189 of the Labour Relations Act by not providing the applicant with sufficient information regarding her selection for retrenchment and by failing to engage in a meaningful consultation process. The respondent's reliance on the applicant's length of service from 1 January 1997, rather than from 1 February 1993, was incorrect, as Section 197(2) required recognition of her full service period. The selection criteria applied were flawed, and the consultation process was not adequately conducted. As a result, the dismissal was procedurally unfair, and the applicant was entitled to severance pay...

Court Disposition

The dismissal of the applicant was declared procedurally unfair. The respondent was ordered to pay severance pay and compensation to the applicant, and to pay her legal costs.

Orders

  • The dismissal of the applicant on 30 May 1997 was procedurally unfair.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant severance pay of one week for each year of service from 1 February 1993, with deduction of any severance pay already paid.