NUM obo Mashilane and Others v Micronized Product (Pty) Ltd and Another (JS935/20) [2024] ZALCJHB 525 (24 January 2024)

NUM obo Mashilane and Others v Micronized Product (Pty) Ltd and Another (JS935/20) [2024] ZALCJHB 525 (24 January 2024)

The court found that the respondents had established a genuine operational rationale for retrenchment, namely declining sales volumes worsened by the Covid-19 pandemic. The consultation process was facilitated by the CCMA and the respondents made repeated, reasonable efforts to engage NUM, which failed to participate meaningfully or provide alternatives. The applicants conceded the declining sales figures and abandoned their procedural unfairness claim. The evidence presented by the applicants was inconsistent, unsupported, and largely consisted of versions not put to the respondents' witness or pleaded. The court upheld the special pleas on locus standi and jurisdiction, dismissed the...

Citation
[2024] ZALCJHB 525
Parties
Applicant: NUM obo Patrick Mashilane and Others; Respondent: Micronized Products (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Pegmin (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 January 2024
Case Number
JS935/20
Procedural Posture
Labour Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Applicants' claim dismissed; costs awarded against the applicant union.
Judges
M T M Phehane
Legal Topics
Retrenchment, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Section 189a Consultation, Selection Criteria, Costs Order
Labour Law Retrenchment Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Section 189a Consultation Selection Criteria Costs Order

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NUM obo Patrick Mashilane and Others

Applicant

Micronized Products (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Pegmin (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' dismissal was substantively unfair.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents followed a fair retrenchment process under section 189A of the LRA.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' claim of procedural unfairness is sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents had established a genuine operational rationale for retrenchment, namely declining sales volumes worsened by the Covid-19 pandemic. The consultation process was facilitated by the CCMA and the respondents made repeated, reasonable efforts to engage NUM, which failed to participate meaningfully or provide alternatives. The applicants conceded the declining sales figures and abandoned their procedural unfairness claim. The evidence presented by the applicants was inconsistent, unsupported, and largely consisted of versions not put to the respondents' witness or pleaded. The court upheld the special pleas on locus standi and jurisdiction, dismissed the...

Court Disposition

Applicants' claim dismissed; costs awarded against the applicant union.

Orders

  • The preliminary point on locus standi is upheld.
  • The special plea on jurisdiction is upheld.