Rosco Moudings (Pty) Ltd and others v NUMSA and others (JA13/98) [1999] ZALAC 2 (18 February 1999)

Rosco Moudings (Pty) Ltd and others v NUMSA and others (JA13/98) [1999] ZALAC 2 (18 February 1999)

The Labour Appeal Court found that the dismissal of the employees was substantively unfair. The direct evidence established that the entire workforce participated in the go-slow, making the selection of only those who had not accepted the wage offer for dismissal arbitrary and unfair. The parity principle required equal treatment, and the selection criterion failed to meet the standard of fairness. The industrial court's order for reinstatement was partially incorrect, as it exceeded the statutory limit for retrospective relief. The court held that the three absentees should be reinstated retrospectively for six months, while the remaining employees should be reinstated from the date of...

Citation
[1999] ZALAC 2
Parties
Appellant: Rosco Mouldings (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Volante; Respondent: NUMSA; Respondent: AND OTHERS
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 February 1999
Case Number
JA13/98
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Court Determination and Order
Outcome
Appeal partially succeeds; industrial court order set aside and substituted with new reinstatement orders.
Judges
Ngcobo, Froneman
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Collective Bargaining, Go Slow, Reinstatement, Parity Principle, Jurisdiction of Industrial Court
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Collective Bargaining Go Slow Reinstatement Parity Principle Jurisdiction of Industrial Court

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosco Mouldings (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Volante

Appellant

NUMSA

Respondent

AND OTHERS

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Court Determination and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the employees for participating in a go-slow constituted an unfair labour practice.
  2. 2 Whether the selection criterion for dismissal was fair and reasonable.
  3. 3 Whether the industrial court's order for reinstatement was appropriate and in accordance with statutory limits.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court found that the dismissal of the employees was substantively unfair. The direct evidence established that the entire workforce participated in the go-slow, making the selection of only those who had not accepted the wage offer for dismissal arbitrary and unfair. The parity principle required equal treatment, and the selection criterion failed to meet the standard of fairness. The industrial court's order for reinstatement was partially incorrect, as it exceeded the statutory limit for retrospective relief. The court held that the three absentees should be reinstated retrospectively for six months, while the remaining employees should be reinstated from the date of...

Court Disposition

Appeal partially succeeds; industrial court order set aside and substituted with new reinstatement orders.

Orders

  • The dismissal of the applicants by the respondents on 29 September 1995 was unfair and constituted an unfair labour practice.
  • Respondents are ordered to reinstate Messrs Christopher Kanyane, Solomon Morobane and Banks Mashale retrospectively for a period of six months from 6 February 1998.