Mngomezulu and Another v Nestle South Africa (Pty) Ltd (JS235/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 441 (24 November 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] ZALCJHB 441
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Lagrange
- Case number
- JS235/17
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Lagrange
- Case number
- JS235/17
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicants were dismissed for exercising their statutory rights under section 198 of the Labour Relations Act, specifically seeking a determination of their status as permanent employees and participating in related proceedings. Such dismissals are automatically unfair in terms of sections 187(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. As there was no evidence presented to justify denying reinstatement, the court ordered that the applicants be reinstated with retrospective effect to the date of their dismissal.
Court disposition
Applicants' dismissals were automatically unfair; reinstatement ordered.
Orders
- The applicants' dismissals at the end of June 2016 were automatically unfair.
- The respondent must reinstate the applicants with retrospective effect to the date of their dismissal within 5 days of the applicants tendering their services and provided that a copy of this order has been served on the respondent on or before the date they tender their services.
- The applicants must tender their services within 10 days of receipt of this order.
- No order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Sipho Amos Mngomezulu
ApplicantPhillip Mabuyi
ApplicantNestle South Africa (Pty) Ltd
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Default Judgment / Trial
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicants were automatically unfairly dismissed for exercising rights under section 198 of the Labour Relations Act.
- 02
Whether reinstatement is the appropriate remedy for the applicants.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants claimed they were dismissed for exercising their rights to seek a determination under section 198 of the Labour Relations Act, declaring them permanent employees and for participating in proceedings under that section. They argued that such dismissals are automatically unfair under sections 187(d)(i) and (ii) of the Labour Relations Act.
- Respondent
- The respondent did not appear and did not present any argument.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, sections 187(d)(i) and (ii)
A dismissal is automatically unfair if the reason for dismissal is the employee's exercise of rights under section 198 of the Labour Relations Act.
- 02
Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
Reinstatement is the appropriate remedy where there is no evidence justifying refusal of reinstatement after an automatically unfair dismissal.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicants were dismissed for exercising their statutory rights under section 198 of the Labour Relations Act, specifically seeking a determination of their status as permanent employees and participating in related proceedings. Such dismissals are automatically unfair in terms of sections 187(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. As there was no evidence presented to justify denying reinstatement, the court ordered that the applicants be reinstated with retrospective effect to the date of their dismissal.
Court disposition
Applicants' dismissals were automatically unfair; reinstatement ordered.
- The applicants' dismissals at the end of June 2016 were automatically unfair.
- The respondent must reinstate the applicants with retrospective effect to the date of their dismissal within 5 days of the applicants tendering their services and provided that a copy of this order has been served on the respondent on or before the date they tender their services.
- The applicants must tender their services within 10 days of receipt of this order.
- No order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court Johannesburg
Judgment
Not reportable
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
HELD
AT JOHANNESBURG
Case No: JS235/17
In the matter between:
SIPHO
AMOS MNGOMEZULU First Applicant
PHILLIP
MABUYI Second Applicant and NESTLE SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD Respondent
Heard: 21 November 2017
Delivered: 24 November 2017
Default judgment
LAGRANGE J
[1] Having considered the contents of the statement of claim as confirmed on affidavit by the applicants, I am satisfied that the applicants were unfairly dismissed for exercising their rights to seek a determination under s 198 of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 declaring them to be permanent employees and for participating in proceedings under that section. Accordingly their dismissals were automatically unfair in terms of sections 187(d) (i) and (ii) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995.
[2] There being no evidence why they ought not to be reinstated, reinstatement appears to be the appropriate relief.
Order
[1] The applicants dismissals at the end of June 2016 were automatically unfair and the respondent must reinstate the applicants with retrospective effect to the date of their dismissal within 5 days of the applicants tendering their services to the respondent and provided that a copy of this order has been served on the respondent on or before the date they tender their services.
[2] The applicants must tender their services within 10 days of receipt of this order.
[3] No order is made as to costs.
_______
Lagrange J
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
APPEARANCES
APPLICANTS:
In person
RESPONDENT:
No appearance
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.