Rachoene and Others v G4S Secure Solutions (Pty) Ltd (J3933/18) [2024] ZALCJHB 136 (18 March 2024)

Rachoene and Others v G4S Secure Solutions (Pty) Ltd (J3933/18) [2024] ZALCJHB 136 (18 March 2024)

The court found that the applicants' dismissal was substantively fair. The respondent lost a major contract, resulting in the redundancy of the applicants' positions. The respondent complied with section 189A of the LRA, offering alternative positions to all affected employees and communicating these opportunities...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] ZALCJHB 136
Parties
Applicant: Morwasegosele Johannes Rachoene; Applicant: Molahlogo Delmond Sebone; Respondent: G4S Secure Solutions (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 March 2024
Case Number
J3933/18
Procedural Posture
Unfair Dismissal Application / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Applicants' claim dismissed; dismissal found substantively fair.
Judges
S Snyman
Legal Topics
Retrenchment, Operational Requirements, Section 189a Lra, Alternative Positions, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness
Labour Law Retrenchment Operational Requirements Section 189a Lra Alternative Positions Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Morwasegosele Johannes Rachoene

Applicant

Molahlogo Delmond Sebone

Applicant

G4S Secure Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Dismissal Application / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' dismissal for operational requirements was substantively fair.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were entitled to challenge procedural fairness under section 189A of the LRA.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants unreasonably refused alternative positions offered by the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' dismissal was substantively fair. The respondent lost a major contract, resulting in the redundancy of the applicants' positions. The respondent complied with section 189A of the LRA, offering alternative positions to all affected employees and communicating these opportunities through written notices and consultations. The applicants either failed or refused to apply for these positions, despite being qualified and able to avoid retrenchment. Their reasons for not applying were found to be unjustified and lacking credibility. The court held that the applicants were the authors of their own misfortune, as most other affected employees who applied for...

Court Disposition

Applicants' claim dismissed; dismissal found substantively fair.

Orders

  • The applicants' dismissal by the respondent is substantively fair.
  • The applicants' claim is consequently dismissed.