Ngcobo and Others v Chester Butcheries (D 268/2011) [2012] ZALCD 11; (2012) 33 ILJ 2932 (LC) (8 May 2012)

Ngcobo and Others v Chester Butcheries (D 268/2011) [2012] ZALCD 11; (2012) 33 ILJ 2932 (LC) (8 May 2012)

The applicants failed to establish a prima facie case that the respondent discriminated against them for participating in a protected strike. Evidence showed that bonuses were paid to union members at other stores who also participated in the strike, and that bonuses were withheld from employees at stores where no strike occurred. The respondent's explanation that bonuses were based on store profitability was consistent with the facts, and the applicants did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claim of discrimination. The anomaly regarding 'Deena' was explained as an administrative error and did not support the applicants' case. Consequently, the applicants did not discharge...

Citation
[2012] ZALCD 11
Parties
Applicant: Ngcobo Lungile & Six Others; Respondent: Chester Butcheries
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 May 2012
Case Number
D 268/2011
Procedural Posture
Labour Claim / Trial
Outcome
The applicants' claim is dismissed.
Judges
Whitcher
Legal Topics
Unfair Discrimination, Protected Strike, Bonus Payments, Burden of Proof, Victimisation, Section 5 Lra
Labour Law Unfair Discrimination Protected Strike Bonus Payments Burden of Proof Victimisation Section 5 Lra

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ngcobo Lungile & Six Others

Applicant

Chester Butcheries

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Claim / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the respondent discriminate against the applicants by withholding bonuses due to their participation in a protected strike?
  2. 2 Did the respondent contravene section 5(1) of the Labour Relations Act by not paying bonuses to the applicants for the year 2010?
  3. 3 Did the applicants establish a credible possibility that the non-payment of bonuses was based on their exercise of the right to strike?

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish a prima facie case that the respondent discriminated against them for participating in a protected strike. Evidence showed that bonuses were paid to union members at other stores who also participated in the strike, and that bonuses were withheld from employees at stores where no strike occurred. The respondent's explanation that bonuses were based on store profitability was consistent with the facts, and the applicants did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claim of discrimination. The anomaly regarding 'Deena' was explained as an administrative error and did not support the applicants' case. Consequently, the applicants did not discharge...

Court Disposition

The applicants' claim is dismissed.

Orders

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