Mackay v ABSA Group and Another (C 487/98) [1999] ZALC 116 (28 July 1999)

Mackay v ABSA Group and Another (C 487/98) [1999] ZALC 116 (28 July 1999)

The court found that the applicant's dismissal was not based on genuine operational requirements but was a direct consequence of his initiation of a grievance against management. The employer failed to make a genuine effort to find alternative employment for the applicant and did not consult him meaningfully regarding alternatives to dismissal. The court interpreted section 187(1)(d) purposively, holding that participation in a grievance procedure constitutes the exercise of a right protected by the Labour Relations Act. The dismissal was therefore automatically unfair. The employer also failed to comply with section 189, as no proper consultation or information sharing occurred. The...

Citation
[1999] ZALC 116
Parties
Applicant: BHG (Brian) Mackay; Respondent: ABSA Group; Respondent: Cortal Direct (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 July 1999
Case Number
C 487/98
Procedural Posture
Dismissal Dispute / Trial
Outcome
The applicant's dismissal was declared automatically unfair under section 187(1)(d) of the Labour Relations Act.
Judges
Mlambo
Legal Topics
Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Section 187 1 D, Grievance Procedure, Operational Requirements, Fair Labour Practices
Labour Law Automatically Unfair Dismissal Section 187 1 D Grievance Procedure Operational Requirements Fair Labour Practices

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

Parties

BHG (Brian) Mackay

Applicant

ABSA Group

Respondent

Cortal Direct (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Dismissal Dispute / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's dismissal was automatically unfair under section 187(1)(d) of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair.
  3. 3 Whether the employer complied with its obligations under the grievance procedure and section 189 of the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's dismissal was not based on genuine operational requirements but was a direct consequence of his initiation of a grievance against management. The employer failed to make a genuine effort to find alternative employment for the applicant and did not consult him meaningfully regarding alternatives to dismissal. The court interpreted section 187(1)(d) purposively, holding that participation in a grievance procedure constitutes the exercise of a right protected by the Labour Relations Act. The dismissal was therefore automatically unfair. The employer also failed to comply with section 189, as no proper consultation or information sharing occurred. The...

Court Disposition

The applicant's dismissal was declared automatically unfair under section 187(1)(d) of the Labour Relations Act.

Orders

  • The dismissal of the applicant was unfair within the contemplation of section 187(1)(d) of the Labour Relations Act.
  • The respondents are ordered jointly and severally to pay the applicant compensation totaling 24 months salary calculated at his rate of pay at the time of his dismissal.