MTWU Obo Mbuyeleni JS & Gumede WM v G4s Cash Solutions (Pty) Ltd (D543/13) [2022] ZALCD 53 (8 February 2022)

MTWU Obo Mbuyeleni JS & Gumede WM v G4s Cash Solutions (Pty) Ltd (D543/13) [2022] ZALCD 53 (8 February 2022)

The court found that the respondent had a bona fide commercial rationale for retrenching the applicants, namely the significant and ongoing loss of revenue following the termination of a major contract. The selection criteria applied, including LIFO, were fair and objective, and alternative positions were offered...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ZALCD 53
Parties
Applicant: MTWU obo Mbuyeleni JS & Gumede WM; Respondent: G4S Cash Solutions (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 February 2022
Case Number
D543/13
Procedural Posture
Unfair Dismissal Application / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Dismissal substantively fair but procedurally unfair; compensation awarded to applicants; no order as to costs.
Judges
Mgaga
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Retrenchment, Procedural Fairness, Operational Requirements, Selection Criteria, Compensation
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Retrenchment Procedural Fairness Operational Requirements Selection Criteria Compensation

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MTWU obo Mbuyeleni JS & Gumede WM

Applicant

G4S Cash Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Dismissal Application / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the dismissal of the applicants substantively fair based on operational requirements?
  2. 2 Was the dismissal procedurally fair, particularly regarding consultation and bumping?
  3. 3 Are the applicants entitled to reinstatement or compensation, and if so, in what amount?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent had a bona fide commercial rationale for retrenching the applicants, namely the significant and ongoing loss of revenue following the termination of a major contract. The selection criteria applied, including LIFO, were fair and objective, and alternative positions were offered but refused by the applicants. However, the consultation process was procedurally flawed: the respondent failed to conclude consultation on the critical issue of bumping, which could have avoided the retrenchment. The final consultation meeting was not rescheduled after being aborted, and the applicants were dismissed without resolving this outstanding issue. Accordingly, the...

Court Disposition

Dismissal substantively fair but procedurally unfair; compensation awarded to applicants; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The dismissal of the applicants due to operational requirements was substantively fair, but procedurally unfair.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay each applicant compensation equivalent to 9 months’ remuneration calculated at the rate of remuneration on the date of dismissal: R88,470.99 to Mr J.S. Mbuyeleni and R87,687.90 to Mr W.M. Gumede.