P G Group (Pty) Ltd v Mbambo N.O and Others (JR 215/2004) [2004] ZALC 78; [2005] 1 BLLR 71 (LC); (2004) 25 ILJ 2366 (LC) (26 October 2004)

P G Group (Pty) Ltd v Mbambo N.O and Others (JR 215/2004) [2004] ZALC 78; [2005] 1 BLLR 71 (LC); (2004) 25 ILJ 2366 (LC) (26 October 2004)

The court held that the decision to remove the third respondent as director was made by the members of the applicant in a general meeting, and in law, this constitutes a decision of the company itself. Therefore, the applicant terminated the third respondent's appointment as director. The court rejected the applicant's argument that the termination was effected solely by the shareholder and not by the company. The court further found that the status of a director does not automatically exclude protection under the Labour Relations Act if the director is also an employee. The Bargaining Council therefore had jurisdiction to conciliate the dispute, and the application to review and set...

Citation
[2004] ZALC 78
Parties
Applicant: P G Group (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commissioner L Mbambo N.O.; Respondent: The National Bargaining Council for the Chemical Industry; Respondent: Philip Thomas Peter Clatworthy
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 October 2004
Case Number
JR 215/2004
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Revelas
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Jurisdiction of Bargaining Council, Status of Directors as Employees, Operation of Company Articles
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Jurisdiction of Bargaining Council Status of Directors as Employees Operation of Company Articles

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P G Group (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Commissioner L Mbambo N.O.

Respondent

The National Bargaining Council for the Chemical Industry

Respondent

Philip Thomas Peter Clatworthy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bargaining Council had jurisdiction to conciliate the alleged unfair dismissal dispute between the applicant and the third respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the termination of the third respondent's appointment as director constituted a dismissal as defined in section 186(a) of the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether a director removed in terms of company articles is protected by the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the decision to remove the third respondent as director was made by the members of the applicant in a general meeting, and in law, this constitutes a decision of the company itself. Therefore, the applicant terminated the third respondent's appointment as director. The court rejected the applicant's argument that the termination was effected solely by the shareholder and not by the company. The court further found that the status of a director does not automatically exclude protection under the Labour Relations Act if the director is also an employee. The Bargaining Council therefore had jurisdiction to conciliate the dispute, and the application to review and set...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the jurisdictional ruling is dismissed.
  • No punitive cost order is made against the applicant.