Ledwaba v Laxness (Pty) Ltd (JS571/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 377 (16 October 2018)

Ledwaba v Laxness (Pty) Ltd (JS571/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 377 (16 October 2018)

The applicant failed to produce credible evidence that her dismissal was automatically unfair under section 187(1)(d) of the LRA, as the grievance she relied upon was not pursued and there was no causal connection between the exercise of rights and the dismissal. The consultation process was found to be meaningful and not a fait accompli, with no procedural unfairness established. However, the dismissal was substantively unfair because the respondent did not offer the applicant the vacant Human Resources Manager position, which could have avoided her dismissal. Reinstatement or re-employment was not reasonably practicable as the SPM position no longer existed and no suitable alternative...

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 377
Parties
Applicant: Nomalanga Ledwaba; Respondent: Lanxess (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 October 2018
Case Number
JS571/16
Procedural Posture
Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
The applicant was not automatically unfairly dismissed. The dismissal was procedurally fair but substantively unfair. Compensation and costs orders were made.
Judges
GN Moshoana
Legal Topics
Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Operational Requirements, Compensation, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Costs Order
Labour Law Automatically Unfair Dismissal Operational Requirements Compensation Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Costs Order

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nomalanga Ledwaba

Applicant

Lanxess (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the applicant automatically unfairly dismissed within the meaning of section 187(1)(d) of the LRA?
  2. 2 Was the dismissal of the applicant procedurally and substantively unfair?
  3. 3 Is reinstatement or re-employment reasonably practicable in the circumstances?

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to produce credible evidence that her dismissal was automatically unfair under section 187(1)(d) of the LRA, as the grievance she relied upon was not pursued and there was no causal connection between the exercise of rights and the dismissal. The consultation process was found to be meaningful and not a fait accompli, with no procedural unfairness established. However, the dismissal was substantively unfair because the respondent did not offer the applicant the vacant Human Resources Manager position, which could have avoided her dismissal. Reinstatement or re-employment was not reasonably practicable as the SPM position no longer existed and no suitable alternative...

Court Disposition

The applicant was not automatically unfairly dismissed. The dismissal was procedurally fair but substantively unfair. Compensation and costs orders were made.

Orders

  • The dismissal of the applicant is not automatically unfair.
  • The dismissal of the applicant is procedurally fair but substantively unfair.