Mjoli and Another v Workforce Staffing (JS681/2018) [2023] ZALCJHB 111 (17 January 2023)

Mjoli and Another v Workforce Staffing (JS681/2018) [2023] ZALCJHB 111 (17 January 2023)

The court found that the applicants were employed on fixed-term contracts and that their employment was terminated due to operational requirements following the closure of the respondent's client, Rema Tip Top. The respondent's version that separation agreements were signed was rejected as a fabrication, with no credible evidence that the applicants signed such agreements. The respondent failed to follow the mandatory consultation process under section 189 of the Labour Relations Act, and there was a blatant disregard for both procedural and substantive fairness. The applicants' dismissal was therefore unfair. The respondent did not provide any facts to demonstrate that reinstatement was...

Citation
[2023] ZALCJHB 111
Parties
Applicant: Siyabulela L. Mjoli; Applicant: Sabelo S. Mbatha; Respondent: Workforce Staffing
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 January 2023
Case Number
JS681/2018
Procedural Posture
Unfair Dismissal Application / Judgment
Outcome
The applicants' dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair. The applicants are retrospectively reinstated from 23 March 2018. No order as to costs.
Judges
M T M Phehane
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Retrenchment, Section 189 Consultation, Fixed Term Contracts, Reinstatement
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Retrenchment Section 189 Consultation Fixed Term Contracts Reinstatement

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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siyabulela L. Mjoli

Applicant

Sabelo S. Mbatha

Applicant

Workforce Staffing

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Dismissal Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were dismissed for operational requirements in terms of section 189 of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants signed separation agreements terminating their employment.
  3. 3 Whether the dismissal was procedurally and substantively fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were employed on fixed-term contracts and that their employment was terminated due to operational requirements following the closure of the respondent's client, Rema Tip Top. The respondent's version that separation agreements were signed was rejected as a fabrication, with no credible evidence that the applicants signed such agreements. The respondent failed to follow the mandatory consultation process under section 189 of the Labour Relations Act, and there was a blatant disregard for both procedural and substantive fairness. The applicants' dismissal was therefore unfair. The respondent did not provide any facts to demonstrate that reinstatement was...

Court Disposition

The applicants' dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair. The applicants are retrospectively reinstated from 23 March 2018. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The dismissal of the applicants is procedurally and substantively unfair.
  • The respondent is to retrospectively reinstate the applicants from 23 March 2018.