Perumal and Another v Tiger Brands (D987/04) [2007] ZALC 41; [2008] 1 BLLR 58 (LC); (2007) 28 ILJ 2302 (LC) (1 June 2007)

Perumal and Another v Tiger Brands (D987/04) [2007] ZALC 41; [2008] 1 BLLR 58 (LC); (2007) 28 ILJ 2302 (LC) (1 June 2007)

The Court found that the employer failed to consult FAWU, the correct consulting party, regarding the retrenchment of the first applicant, constituting a procedural defect. However, section 189A(18) precluded the Court from adjudicating procedural fairness in this referral, as no section 189A(13) application was brought. The Court considered the impact of procedural unfairness on substantive fairness and found that the selection criteria and interview process were subjective and unfair. The panel assessing the applicant was biased, and the process did not adequately account for her experience and circumstances. The employer's failure to engage FAWU deprived it of the opportunity to test...

Citation
[2007] ZALC 41
Parties
Applicant: T Perumal; Applicant: Food and Allied Workers Union; Respondent: Tiger Brands
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 2007
Case Number
D987/04
Procedural Posture
Unfair Dismissal Application / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
The dismissal of the employee was found to be substantively unfair. The employer was ordered to reinstate the employee and pay compensation equivalent to twelve months' remuneration. Costs were awarded against the employer, and FAWU was ordered to pay reserved costs from the pre-trial conference.
Judges
Pillay D
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Retrenchment, Selection Criteria, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Employment Equity
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Retrenchment Selection Criteria Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Employment Equity

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T Perumal

Applicant

Food and Allied Workers Union

Applicant

Tiger Brands

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Dismissal Application / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the dismissal of the employee procedurally and substantively fair under section 189 of the Labour Relations Act?
  2. 2 Did the employer consult with the correct party, namely FAWU, regarding the retrenchment?
  3. 3 Were the selection criteria and interview process fair and objective as required by law?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the employer failed to consult FAWU, the correct consulting party, regarding the retrenchment of the first applicant, constituting a procedural defect. However, section 189A(18) precluded the Court from adjudicating procedural fairness in this referral, as no section 189A(13) application was brought. The Court considered the impact of procedural unfairness on substantive fairness and found that the selection criteria and interview process were subjective and unfair. The panel assessing the applicant was biased, and the process did not adequately account for her experience and circumstances. The employer's failure to engage FAWU deprived it of the opportunity to test...

Court Disposition

The dismissal of the employee was found to be substantively unfair. The employer was ordered to reinstate the employee and pay compensation equivalent to twelve months' remuneration. Costs were awarded against the employer, and FAWU was ordered to pay reserved costs from the pre-trial conference.

Orders

  • The dismissal of the employee was substantively unfair.
  • The employer is ordered to reinstate the employee and pay her compensation equivalent to twelve months' remuneration.