Ramotsepane and Others v Barmot Truck Hire; Ramotsapane and Others v Le Roux and Another (JA2/99) [2002] ZALAC 8; [2002] 6 BLLR 517 (LAC); [2002] 6 BLLR 525 (LAC) (19 April 2002)

Ramotsepane and Others v Barmot Truck Hire; Ramotsapane and Others v Le Roux and Another (JA2/99) [2002] ZALAC 8; [2002] 6 BLLR 517 (LAC); [2002] 6 BLLR 525 (LAC) (19 April 2002)

The Labour Appeal Court found that the Industrial Court erred in refusing reinstatement to the Sandton appellants, as their participation in the strike was reluctant, short-lived, and under pressure, with no evidence that reinstatement would be inappropriate. The Court held that, under the old Labour Relations Act, reinstatement is the preferred remedy for unfair dismissal unless the employer demonstrates otherwise. The Heriotdale appellants who participated only on 19 January were also entitled to reinstatement, as their strike involvement was brief and did not warrant dismissal. The three suspended appellants were not on strike and should not have been dismissed; they are entitled to...

Citation
[2002] ZALAC 8
Parties
Appellant: Solomon Ramotsepane & Others; Respondent: Barmot Truck Hire; Respondent: D Le Roux
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 April 2002
Case Number
JA2/99
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal and Review of Industrial Court Determination
Outcome
Appeal partially upheld and partially dismissed. Review application dismissed.
Judges
RMM Zondo, DM Davis, B Du Plessis
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Illegal Strike, Reinstatement, Disciplinary Procedure, Procedural Fairness, Compensation for Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Illegal Strike Reinstatement Disciplinary Procedure Procedural Fairness Compensation for Unfair Dismissal

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Solomon Ramotsepane & Others

Appellant

Barmot Truck Hire

Respondent

D Le Roux

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal and Review of Industrial Court Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the appellants constituted an unfair labour practice under the Labour Relations Act, 1956.
  2. 2 Whether reinstatement or compensation is the appropriate remedy for the dismissed employees.
  3. 3 Whether the disciplinary and dismissal procedures followed by the respondent were substantively and procedurally fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court found that the Industrial Court erred in refusing reinstatement to the Sandton appellants, as their participation in the strike was reluctant, short-lived, and under pressure, with no evidence that reinstatement would be inappropriate. The Court held that, under the old Labour Relations Act, reinstatement is the preferred remedy for unfair dismissal unless the employer demonstrates otherwise. The Heriotdale appellants who participated only on 19 January were also entitled to reinstatement, as their strike involvement was brief and did not warrant dismissal. The three suspended appellants were not on strike and should not have been dismissed; they are entitled to...

Court Disposition

Appeal partially upheld and partially dismissed. Review application dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal of appellants who participated in the strike on multiple days is dismissed with costs.
  • The appeal of Heriotdale appellants who only participated in the strike on 19 January is upheld; their dismissal is set aside.