National Union of Mineworkers and Others v MCC Group of Companies (JS 681/2010) [2015] ZALCJHB 64 (27 February 2015)

National Union of Mineworkers and Others v MCC Group of Companies (JS 681/2010) [2015] ZALCJHB 64 (27 February 2015)

The court found that the non-re-employment of the individual applicants was not substantively unfair because their exclusion was the result of a collective agreement reached between NUM and the respondent, which specifically identified those to be reinstated and those to remain dismissed. The applicants were bound...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 64
Parties
Applicant: National Union of Mineworkers; Applicant: B. Gladile & 7 Others; Respondent: MCC Group of Companies
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 February 2015
Case Number
JS 681/2010
Procedural Posture
Labour Dismissal Application / Stated Case; Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Applicants' claim dismissed.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Selective Reemployment, Collective Agreements, Procedural Fairness, Trade Union Recognition, Unprotected Strike, Disciplinary Hearing
Labour Law Selective Reemployment Collective Agreements Procedural Fairness Trade Union Recognition Unprotected Strike Disciplinary Hearing

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Union of Mineworkers

Applicant

B. Gladile & 7 Others

Applicant

MCC Group of Companies

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Dismissal Application / Stated Case; Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the individual applicants was substantively fair given that other dismissed employees were reinstated or re-employed but not the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the individual applicants was substantively unfair due to the absence of a further disciplinary hearing beyond that of 18 February 2010.
  3. 3 Whether the dismissal of the individual applicants was procedurally unfair because NUM was not notified of the disciplinary hearing of 18 February 2010.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the non-re-employment of the individual applicants was not substantively unfair because their exclusion was the result of a collective agreement reached between NUM and the respondent, which specifically identified those to be reinstated and those to remain dismissed. The applicants were bound by the terms of this agreement, and there was no evidence of arbitrary or capricious conduct by the respondent. The substantive fairness of the original dismissals of 22 February 2010 was not challenged in these proceedings. Regarding procedural fairness, the court held that NUM was not a recognized union at the relevant time and thus was not entitled to notification of the...

Court Disposition

Applicants' claim dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicants’ claim is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.