Marneweck v SEESA Ltd (JS 814/07) [2009] ZALC 31; [2009] 7 BLLR 669 (LC); (2009) 30 ILJ 2745 (LC) (17 March 2009)

Marneweck v SEESA Ltd (JS 814/07) [2009] ZALC 31; [2009] 7 BLLR 669 (LC); (2009) 30 ILJ 2745 (LC) (17 March 2009)

The court found that the respondent's conduct in declaring the applicant's position redundant and offering only a consultant contract constituted a termination of the employment relationship. The disciplinary hearing for alleged absconding was held after the dismissal and was deemed a sham. The respondent failed to comply with section 189 of the Labour Relations Act, as there was no proper consultation or consideration of alternatives to dismissal. The dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair, and the applicant was entitled to maximum compensation and payment for June 2007.

Citation
[2009] ZALC 31
Parties
Applicant: Gerard Marneweck; Respondent: SEESA Limited
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 March 2009
Case Number
JS 814/07
Procedural Posture
Unfair Dismissal Application / Judgment
Outcome
The dismissal of the applicant was both procedurally and substantively unfair.
Judges
molahlehi
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Retrenchment, Operational Requirements, Procedural Fairness, Compensation, Section 189 Consultation
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Retrenchment Operational Requirements Procedural Fairness Compensation Section 189 Consultation

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerard Marneweck

Applicant

SEESA Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Dismissal Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was dismissed for misconduct or operational requirements.
  2. 2 The date of the applicant's dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether the retrenchment was procedurally and substantively fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's conduct in declaring the applicant's position redundant and offering only a consultant contract constituted a termination of the employment relationship. The disciplinary hearing for alleged absconding was held after the dismissal and was deemed a sham. The respondent failed to comply with section 189 of the Labour Relations Act, as there was no proper consultation or consideration of alternatives to dismissal. The dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair, and the applicant was entitled to maximum compensation and payment for June 2007.

Court Disposition

The dismissal of the applicant was both procedurally and substantively unfair.

Orders

  • The dismissal of the applicant is declared unfair.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant compensation of 12 months' remuneration calculated at the salary received at the date of dismissal.