Nkosi and Others v Eggbert Eggs (Pty) Ltd (JS675/06) [2007] ZALC 42; (2007) 28 ILJ 2294 (LC) (7 June 2007)

Nkosi and Others v Eggbert Eggs (Pty) Ltd (JS675/06) [2007] ZALC 42; (2007) 28 ILJ 2294 (LC) (7 June 2007)

The court found that the Applicants participated in an unprotected strike on 19 and 20 June 2006. The strike was not protected as the procedural requirements of the Labour Relations Act were not met: no referral of the dispute to the CCMA, no certificate of outcome, and no proper notice. The employer issued five clear ultimatums and gave the Applicants sufficient time to respond, which they rejected. The employer also contacted the union and offered hearings, which the Applicants refused to attend. The court held that participation in an unprotected strike constitutes misconduct and is a fair reason for dismissal. The dismissal was both substantively and procedurally fair, and the...

Citation
[2007] ZALC 42
Parties
Applicant: Linah Nkosi and Others; Respondent: Eggbert Eggs (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 June 2007
Case Number
JS675/06
Procedural Posture
Labour Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed. Dismissal of the 81 Applicants is both substantively and procedurally fair. Costs awarded against the Applicants.
Judges
G N Moshoana
Legal Topics
Unprotected Strike, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Dismissal for Misconduct, Settlement Agreement
Labour Law Unprotected Strike Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Dismissal for Misconduct Settlement Agreement

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linah Nkosi and Others

Applicant

Eggbert Eggs (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicants participated in an unprotected strike.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the Applicants was substantively fair.
  3. 3 Whether the dismissal was procedurally fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Applicants participated in an unprotected strike on 19 and 20 June 2006. The strike was not protected as the procedural requirements of the Labour Relations Act were not met: no referral of the dispute to the CCMA, no certificate of outcome, and no proper notice. The employer issued five clear ultimatums and gave the Applicants sufficient time to respond, which they rejected. The employer also contacted the union and offered hearings, which the Applicants refused to attend. The court held that participation in an unprotected strike constitutes misconduct and is a fair reason for dismissal. The dismissal was both substantively and procedurally fair, and the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Dismissal of the 81 Applicants is both substantively and procedurally fair. Costs awarded against the Applicants.

Orders

  • The settlement agreement between the parties is made an order of court.
  • The dismissal of the 81 Applicants is both substantively and procedurally fair.