Phefo and Another v Costeen Brickworks (Pty) Ltd (J443/97) [1997] ZALC 14 (12 December 1997)

Phefo and Another v Costeen Brickworks (Pty) Ltd (J443/97) [1997] ZALC 14 (12 December 1997)

The court held that the settlement agreement required the applicants to be reinstated in exactly the same positions they held prior to dismissal—namely, as gardener and kitchen worker. The respondent's reinstatement of the applicants as general workers in the brickyard did not comply with the agreement, as it failed to restore them to their previous roles and conditions. The agreement's phrase 'on terms and conditions no less favourable than those which existed at the time of their dismissal' must be interpreted to mean reinstatement in the same positions and with the same benefits. The court exercised its power under section 158(1)(c) to make the agreement an order of court, ordering the...

Citation
[1997] ZALC 14
Parties
Applicant: Abram Phefo; Applicant: Elsie Phefo; Respondent: Costeen Brickworks (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 December 1997
Case Number
J443/97
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Make Settlement Agreement an Order of Court
Outcome
Application granted. The agreement of settlement is made an order of court. The applicants are to be reinstated in their previous positions.
Judges
D Mlambo
Legal Topics
Settlement Agreement, Reinstatement, Section 158 1 C, Conciliation and Arbitration
Labour Law Civil Procedure Settlement Agreement Reinstatement Section 158 1 C Conciliation and Arbitration

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abram Phefo

Applicant

Elsie Phefo

Applicant

Costeen Brickworks (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Make Settlement Agreement an Order of Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement of settlement constitutes an arbitration award capable of being made an order of court under section 158(1)(c).
  2. 2 Whether the respondent complied fully with the terms of the settlement agreement, specifically regarding reinstatement in previous positions.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to reinstatement in their original positions rather than as general workers in the brickyard.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the settlement agreement required the applicants to be reinstated in exactly the same positions they held prior to dismissal—namely, as gardener and kitchen worker. The respondent's reinstatement of the applicants as general workers in the brickyard did not comply with the agreement, as it failed to restore them to their previous roles and conditions. The agreement's phrase 'on terms and conditions no less favourable than those which existed at the time of their dismissal' must be interpreted to mean reinstatement in the same positions and with the same benefits. The court exercised its power under section 158(1)(c) to make the agreement an order of court, ordering the...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The agreement of settlement is made an order of court. The applicants are to be reinstated in their previous positions.

Orders

  • The agreement of settlement reached under the auspices of the CCMA on 4 April 1997 is made an order of court.
  • The two applicants are reinstated in exactly the same positions they held before dismissal, namely in the garden and kitchen respectively.