Leshilo and Others v Messina Platinum Mines Limited (JS 877/05) [2008] ZALC 107 (31 July 2008)

Leshilo and Others v Messina Platinum Mines Limited (JS 877/05) [2008] ZALC 107 (31 July 2008)

The court found that both applicants participated in the initiation of an unprotected strike without any unjustified conduct by the employer. The first applicant admitted his role and participation, but was prevented from resuming duties by the respondent's security supervisor, which mitigated his continued involvement. The evidence on intimidation was insufficient to justify a finding of guilt on that charge. The respondent failed to produce disciplinary records to support its version that proper initiators were used, and the chairpersons likely acted as both complainant and adjudicator, compromising procedural fairness. The second applicant's denial of participation was contradicted by...

Citation
[2008] ZALC 107
Parties
Applicant: Madimetja Clayton Leshilo; Applicant: Godfrey Maesela; Respondent: Messina Platinum Mines Limited
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 July 2008
Case Number
JS 877/05
Procedural Posture
Unfair Dismissal Application / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Dismissals of both applicants were substantively and procedurally unfair. Reinstatement denied; compensation awarded.
Judges
Cele AJ
Legal Topics
Unprotected Strike, Unfair Dismissal, Disciplinary Procedure, Collective Agreement, Consistency in Dismissal, Compensation for Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Unprotected Strike Unfair Dismissal Disciplinary Procedure Collective Agreement Consistency in Dismissal Compensation for Unfair Dismissal

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

Parties

Madimetja Clayton Leshilo

Applicant

Godfrey Maesela

Applicant

Messina Platinum Mines Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Dismissal Application / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the dismissal of the applicants substantively and procedurally fair under the Labour Relations Act?
  2. 2 Did the applicants participate in an unprotected strike and/or intimidate other employees?
  3. 3 Was there inconsistency in the application of discipline by the respondent?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both applicants participated in the initiation of an unprotected strike without any unjustified conduct by the employer. The first applicant admitted his role and participation, but was prevented from resuming duties by the respondent's security supervisor, which mitigated his continued involvement. The evidence on intimidation was insufficient to justify a finding of guilt on that charge. The respondent failed to produce disciplinary records to support its version that proper initiators were used, and the chairpersons likely acted as both complainant and adjudicator, compromising procedural fairness. The second applicant's denial of participation was contradicted by...

Court Disposition

Dismissals of both applicants were substantively and procedurally unfair. Reinstatement denied; compensation awarded.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to compensate each applicant in an amount equivalent to 12 months’ remuneration calculated at the applicant’s rate of remuneration on the date of his dismissal.
  • Such payment is to be made within 14 days from the date hereof.