Mandonsela and Others v South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (JR1754/18) [2020] ZALCJHB 45 (13 February 2020)

Mandonsela and Others v South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (JR1754/18) [2020] ZALCJHB 45 (13 February 2020)

The court found that the arbitrator's award of three months' compensation was not just and equitable given the applicants' length of service and the circumstances of their dismissal. The court held that compensation equal to twelve months' remuneration was appropriate. Reinstatement was not reasonably practicable as the third respondent never intended to employ the applicants permanently and the work was of limited duration. Regarding the TES dispute, the court determined that the fourth respondent was not a temporary employment service provider and no tripartite relationship existed between the applicants, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent. Therefore, the applicants could...

Citation
[2020] ZALCJHB 45
Parties
Applicant: Lawrence Madonsela and 194 Others; Respondent: South African Local Government Bargaining Council; Respondent: Timothy Boyce N.O.; Respondent: Ekhuruleni Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Hlaniki Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 February 2020
Case Number
JR1754/18
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application to review and set aside the arbitration award is partially upheld. The compensation award is substituted with twelve months' remuneration per applicant. Remaining grounds of review are dismissed.
Judges
A Patel
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Fixed Term Contracts, Compensation Awards, Temporary Employment Service, Section 198a Lra, Section 193 Lra
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Fixed Term Contracts Compensation Awards Temporary Employment Service Section 198a Lra Section 193 Lra

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

Parties

Lawrence Madonsela and 194 Others

Applicant

South African Local Government Bargaining Council

Respondent

Timothy Boyce N.O.

Respondent

Ekhuruleni Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Hlaniki Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were unfairly dismissed by the third respondent on 30 June 2015.
  2. 2 Whether reinstatement or compensation is the appropriate remedy for the unfair dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether a temporary employment service relationship existed between the third and fourth respondents and the applicants under section 198A of the LRA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator's award of three months' compensation was not just and equitable given the applicants' length of service and the circumstances of their dismissal. The court held that compensation equal to twelve months' remuneration was appropriate. Reinstatement was not reasonably practicable as the third respondent never intended to employ the applicants permanently and the work was of limited duration. Regarding the TES dispute, the court determined that the fourth respondent was not a temporary employment service provider and no tripartite relationship existed between the applicants, the third respondent, and the fourth respondent. Therefore, the applicants could...

Court Disposition

Application to review and set aside the arbitration award is partially upheld. The compensation award is substituted with twelve months' remuneration per applicant. Remaining grounds of review are dismissed.

Orders

  • The compensation awarded by the arbitrator is reviewed and substituted with an order that the third respondent must pay each applicant twelve months' remuneration as compensation for unfair dismissal.
  • The applicants' remaining grounds of review against the arbitration award are dismissed.