Professional Transport Workers Union (PTWU) v Fidelity Security Services (JS10/07) [2008] ZALC 134; [2009] 2 BLLR 157 (LC) ; (2009) 30 ILJ 1129 (LC) (15 October 2008)

Professional Transport Workers Union (PTWU) v Fidelity Security Services (JS10/07) [2008] ZALC 134; [2009] 2 BLLR 157 (LC) ; (2009) 30 ILJ 1129 (LC) (15 October 2008)

The court found that the respondent failed to issue a fair and clear ultimatum to the applicants before their dismissal for participating in unprotected industrial action. The evidence did not support the respondent's claim that an ultimatum was communicated via the shop steward, and there was no clarity on its terms or time frame. The respondent also failed to involve the union, despite an established formal relationship and regular meetings. The dismissals were found to be unfair and too harsh, considering the brief duration of the work stoppages, lack of economic loss to the respondent, and the absence of progressive discipline. The disciplinary procedure was also found to be...

Citation
[2008] ZALC 134
Parties
Applicant: Professional Transport Workers Union (PTWU); Respondent: Fidelity Security Services
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 October 2008
Case Number
JS10/07
Procedural Posture
Unfair Dismissal Application / Judgment
Outcome
The dismissals of the applicants were found to be unfair. The court ordered reinstatement and compensation for the affected applicants.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Unprotected Strike, Ultimatum Requirements, Procedural Fairness, Reinstatement, Compensation, Progressive Discipline
Labour Law Unprotected Strike Ultimatum Requirements Procedural Fairness Reinstatement Compensation Progressive Discipline

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

Parties

Professional Transport Workers Union (PTWU)

Applicant

Fidelity Security Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Dismissal Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent issued a fair ultimatum to the applicants before dismissal for participating in unprotected industrial action.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent unilaterally amended the terms and conditions of employment of the applicants.
  3. 3 Whether the disciplinary procedure adopted by the respondent was fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to issue a fair and clear ultimatum to the applicants before their dismissal for participating in unprotected industrial action. The evidence did not support the respondent's claim that an ultimatum was communicated via the shop steward, and there was no clarity on its terms or time frame. The respondent also failed to involve the union, despite an established formal relationship and regular meetings. The dismissals were found to be unfair and too harsh, considering the brief duration of the work stoppages, lack of economic loss to the respondent, and the absence of progressive discipline. The disciplinary procedure was also found to be...

Court Disposition

The dismissals of the applicants were found to be unfair. The court ordered reinstatement and compensation for the affected applicants.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to reinstate the second to tenth applicants into its employ with immediate effect.
  • The respondent is to pay each of the second to tenth applicants 12 months' compensation calculated at their salary as at the date of dismissal.