Robinson and Others v PriceWaterhouseCoopers (D202/2002) [2005] ZALC 99; [2006] 5 BLLR 504 (LC); (2006) 27 ILJ 836 (LC) (1 December 2005)

Robinson and Others v PriceWaterhouseCoopers (D202/2002) [2005] ZALC 99; [2006] 5 BLLR 504 (LC); (2006) 27 ILJ 836 (LC) (1 December 2005)

The court found that the respondent failed to conduct a genuine consultation process as required by section 189 of the Labour Relations Act. The applicants were effectively pre-selected for retrenchment based solely on cost-saving, without proper consideration of alternatives or fair selection criteria. The letters and meetings indicated finality rather than an open process, and the applicants' withdrawal from consultation was a direct result of the respondent's conduct. The selection criteria applied were unfair, and the retrenchment was both procedurally and substantively unfair. The applicants are entitled to reinstatement with limited retrospective effect.

Citation
[2005] ZALC 99
Parties
Applicant: Neil Anthony Robinson; Applicant: Penelope Louise Thorn; Applicant: Fatima Carrim; Respondent: PriceWaterhouseCoopers
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 December 2005
Case Number
D202/2002
Procedural Posture
Labour Litigation / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Application granted. The applicants are reinstated with limited retrospective effect and the respondent is ordered to pay costs.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Retrenchment, Selection Criteria, Consultation Process, Affirmative Action, Severance Pay
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Retrenchment Selection Criteria Consultation Process Affirmative Action Severance Pay

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

Parties

Neil Anthony Robinson

Applicant

Penelope Louise Thorn

Applicant

Fatima Carrim

Applicant

PriceWaterhouseCoopers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Litigation / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the retrenchment of the applicants was procedurally and substantively unfair.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent complied with section 189 of the Labour Relations Act regarding consultation and selection criteria.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants were pre-selected for retrenchment in contravention of fair labour practices.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to conduct a genuine consultation process as required by section 189 of the Labour Relations Act. The applicants were effectively pre-selected for retrenchment based solely on cost-saving, without proper consideration of alternatives or fair selection criteria. The letters and meetings indicated finality rather than an open process, and the applicants' withdrawal from consultation was a direct result of the respondent's conduct. The selection criteria applied were unfair, and the retrenchment was both procedurally and substantively unfair. The applicants are entitled to reinstatement with limited retrospective effect.

Court Disposition

Application granted. The applicants are reinstated with limited retrospective effect and the respondent is ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • The three applicants are reinstated into their former positions with 18 months retrospective effect.
  • The respondent is to pay the costs of the application.