Kelatwang v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR 639 / 20) [2023] ZALCJHB 158 (24 May 2023)

Kelatwang v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR 639 / 20) [2023] ZALCJHB 158 (24 May 2023)

The court found that the applicant was employed specifically to establish and operate the IA trading business, which was rendered redundant when the business failed due to lack of capital, excessive risk, and sustained losses. The employer's decision to close the IA trading business was commercially rational and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZALCJHB 158
Parties
Applicant: Lesedi Kelatwang; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Lindokhule Dlamini N.O. (as Arbitrator); Respondent: Sygnia Securities (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 May 2023
Case Number
JR 639 / 20
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of CCMA Arbitration Award
Outcome
Review application dismissed; arbitration award upheld.
Judges
S Snyman
Legal Topics
Retrenchment, Operational Requirements, Section 189 Consultation, Review Test, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Retrenchment Operational Requirements Section 189 Consultation Review Test Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Lesedi Kelatwang

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Lindokhule Dlamini N.O. (as Arbitrator)

Respondent

Sygnia Securities (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of CCMA Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the applicant's dismissal for operational requirements substantively and procedurally fair?
  2. 2 Did the arbitrator commit any reviewable irregularity in upholding the dismissal?
  3. 3 Were alternatives to retrenchment properly considered and consulted upon?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was employed specifically to establish and operate the IA trading business, which was rendered redundant when the business failed due to lack of capital, excessive risk, and sustained losses. The employer's decision to close the IA trading business was commercially rational and genuine. The applicant did not qualify for the Head: Trading position due to regulatory requirements, and his salary was not commensurate with available alternative positions. The consultation process under section 189 of the LRA was found to be procedurally fair, with the applicant given ample opportunity to make representations and propose alternatives, none of which were...

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed; arbitration award upheld.

Orders

  • The applicant's review application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.