Morapedi and Others v Enforce Security Services (JS370/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 180 (11 May 2018)

Morapedi and Others v Enforce Security Services (JS370/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 180 (11 May 2018)

The court found that the respondent's dismissal of the applicants was substantively fair, as the uncontested evidence showed that the respondent lost its client contract and had no alternative work for the applicants. However, the respondent failed to comply with the procedural requirements of section 189 of the Labour Relations Act, as no consultation or fair process was followed prior to dismissal. The applicants were not dismissed for incapacity or misconduct, but for operational requirements, making procedural compliance mandatory. The applicants suffered no financial loss, as they obtained alternative employment immediately, but their rights under section 189 were infringed. The...

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 180
Parties
Applicant: Tale Julius Morapedi; Applicant: Moningi Freddie; Applicant: Thomas Rikhotso; Applicant: Sam Maila; Respondent: Enforce Security Services
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 May 2018
Case Number
JS370/15
Procedural Posture
Unfair Dismissal Application / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Dismissal of the applicants was substantively fair but procedurally unfair. Compensation awarded for procedural unfairness. No order as to costs.
Judges
GN Moshoana
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Operational Requirements, Procedural Fairness, Compensation, Automatic Termination Clause
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Operational Requirements Procedural Fairness Compensation Automatic Termination Clause

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tale Julius Morapedi

Applicant

Moningi Freddie

Applicant

Thomas Rikhotso

Applicant

Sam Maila

Applicant

Enforce Security Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Dismissal Application / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' dismissal for operational reasons was substantively and procedurally fair.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent complied with section 189 of the Labour Relations Act regarding fair procedure.
  3. 3 What compensation, if any, is just and equitable for the procedural unfairness.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's dismissal of the applicants was substantively fair, as the uncontested evidence showed that the respondent lost its client contract and had no alternative work for the applicants. However, the respondent failed to comply with the procedural requirements of section 189 of the Labour Relations Act, as no consultation or fair process was followed prior to dismissal. The applicants were not dismissed for incapacity or misconduct, but for operational requirements, making procedural compliance mandatory. The applicants suffered no financial loss, as they obtained alternative employment immediately, but their rights under section 189 were infringed. The...

Court Disposition

Dismissal of the applicants was substantively fair but procedurally unfair. Compensation awarded for procedural unfairness. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The dismissal of only the applicants mentioned in this judgment is substantively fair but procedurally unfair.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay to each of the individual applicants an amount equivalent to two months' salary as compensation less statutory deductions.