Moyo v Knight Watch Security (JS117/08) [2009] ZALC 49 (29 April 2009)

Moyo v Knight Watch Security (JS117/08) [2009] ZALC 49 (29 April 2009)

The court found that the respondent failed to comply with section 189 of the Labour Relations Act by not consulting the applicant regarding her retrenchment and the selection criteria. There was no evidence of a collective agreement regulating the consultation process, and consultation was limited to the union SATAWU. The applicant was entitled to be consulted individually, especially regarding the criteria used for her selection. The respondent's failure to do so rendered the dismissal procedurally unfair. The applicant was therefore entitled to compensation equivalent to nine months' salary, calculated at the rate earned at the date of dismissal.

Citation
[2009] ZALC 49
Parties
Applicant: Nomalungelo Thobeka Moyo; Respondent: Knight Watch Security
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 April 2009
Case Number
JS117/08
Procedural Posture
Labour Unfair Dismissal / Trial
Outcome
The dismissal of the applicant was procedurally unfair. The applicant is awarded compensation.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Retrenchment, Procedural Fairness, Consultation Requirements, Selection Criteria, Compensation for Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Retrenchment Procedural Fairness Consultation Requirements Selection Criteria Compensation for Unfair Dismissal

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nomalungelo Thobeka Moyo

Applicant

Knight Watch Security

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Unfair Dismissal / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the applicant's dismissal procedurally fair under section 189 of the Labour Relations Act?
  2. 2 Was the respondent obliged to consult the applicant regarding the retrenchment and selection criteria?
  3. 3 Is the applicant entitled to compensation for procedural unfairness?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to comply with section 189 of the Labour Relations Act by not consulting the applicant regarding her retrenchment and the selection criteria. There was no evidence of a collective agreement regulating the consultation process, and consultation was limited to the union SATAWU. The applicant was entitled to be consulted individually, especially regarding the criteria used for her selection. The respondent's failure to do so rendered the dismissal procedurally unfair. The applicant was therefore entitled to compensation equivalent to nine months' salary, calculated at the rate earned at the date of dismissal.

Court Disposition

The dismissal of the applicant was procedurally unfair. The applicant is awarded compensation.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant nine months' salary, calculated at the salary earned at the date of dismissal.
  • Payment must be made within fourteen days of the date of this order.