Lyall v City of Johannesburg (JS171/2014) [2017] ZALCJHB 461 (22 November 2017)

Lyall v City of Johannesburg (JS171/2014) [2017] ZALCJHB 461 (22 November 2017)

The applicant failed to prove the existence of any agreement entitling him to work until age 70. The evidence established that the respondent had a normal retirement age policy of 65, which applied to the applicant. The applicant did not avail himself of the procedure to request to work beyond 65. The employer was entitled to retire the applicant in accordance with its policy, and the termination did not constitute an automatically unfair dismissal. The claim of unfair labour practice was based on a single incident in 1989, was not ongoing, and was time-barred under the Labour Relations Act. The applicant did not discharge the onus to prove his claims.

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 461
Parties
Applicant: Lyall, Mathieson Michael; Respondent: The City of Johannesburg
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 November 2017
Case Number
JS171/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
F Coetzee
Legal Topics
Retirement Age, Automatic Unfair Dismissal, Unfair Labour Practice, Retirement Fund Membership
Labour Law Retirement Age Automatic Unfair Dismissal Unfair Labour Practice Retirement Fund Membership

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lyall, Mathieson Michael

Applicant

The City of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was dismissed automatically unfairly due to age or retired in accordance with the employer's normal retirement age.
  2. 2 Whether there was an agreement between the parties regarding the applicant's retirement age.
  3. 3 Whether the employer's conduct constituted an unfair labour practice by compelling the applicant to join a retirement fund.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove the existence of any agreement entitling him to work until age 70. The evidence established that the respondent had a normal retirement age policy of 65, which applied to the applicant. The applicant did not avail himself of the procedure to request to work beyond 65. The employer was entitled to retire the applicant in accordance with its policy, and the termination did not constitute an automatically unfair dismissal. The claim of unfair labour practice was based on a single incident in 1989, was not ongoing, and was time-barred under the Labour Relations Act. The applicant did not discharge the onus to prove his claims.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.