NUMSA and others v Fibre Flair CC T/A Kango Canopies (JA56/99) [2000] ZALAC 3 (17 March 2000)

NUMSA and others v Fibre Flair CC T/A Kango Canopies (JA56/99) [2000] ZALAC 3 (17 March 2000)

The Labour Appeal Court held that section 193(1)(a) of the Labour Relations Act grants the Labour Court a true discretion regarding the date of reinstatement following an unfair dismissal. The discretion is not limited to ordering reinstatement from the date of dismissal and may be exercised to select any...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] ZALAC 3
Parties
Appellant: NUMSA; Appellant: Benedict Phihlela and Others; Respondent: Fibre Flair CC T/A Kango Canopies
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 March 2000
Case Number
JA56/99
Procedural Posture
Labour Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment on Reinstatement Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
N.P. Willis, R.M.M Zondo, J.H. Conradie
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Retrospective Reinstatement, Judicial Discretion, Protest Action, Disciplinary Procedure
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Retrospective Reinstatement Judicial Discretion Protest Action Disciplinary Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NUMSA

Appellant

Benedict Phihlela and Others

Appellant

Fibre Flair CC T/A Kango Canopies

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment on Reinstatement Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Court erred in refusing to order retrospective reinstatement of the appellants from the date of their dismissal.
  2. 2 Whether the Labour Court exercised its discretion capriciously, on a wrong principle, or without substantial reasons in determining the date of reinstatement.
  3. 3 Whether the misconduct of the employees justified the limitation of reinstatement to a non-retrospective date.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court held that section 193(1)(a) of the Labour Relations Act grants the Labour Court a true discretion regarding the date of reinstatement following an unfair dismissal. The discretion is not limited to ordering reinstatement from the date of dismissal and may be exercised to select any appropriate date thereafter. The appellate court found no evidence that the Labour Court exercised its discretion capriciously, on a wrong principle, in a biased manner, or without substantial reasons. The lower court's decision to limit reinstatement as a mark of disapproval for the employees' misconduct was consistent with established legal principles and policy considerations....

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.