SABAWO obo Members and Others v Staffgro (Pty) Ltd (J2192/08) [2013] ZALC 2 (18 December 2013)

SABAWO obo Members and Others v Staffgro (Pty) Ltd (J2192/08) [2013] ZALC 2 (18 December 2013)

The court found that the Applicants participated in an unprotected strike, as confirmed by a prior court order. The Respondent made reasonable attempts to notify the Applicants of disciplinary hearings, including service of notices on the union, which represented the employees during the strike. The court held that service on the union constituted proper service under section 200 of the Labour Relations Act and relevant case law. The Applicants were afforded two opportunities to attend disciplinary hearings but failed to do so, persisting in their mistaken belief that the strike was protected. The court concluded that the dismissals were procedurally fair and not automatically unfair...

Citation
[2013] ZALC 2
Parties
Applicant: SABAWO obo Members and Others; Respondent: Staffgro (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 December 2013
Case Number
J2192/08
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed. Dismissal of Applicants for unprotected strike action was procedurally fair. Costs awarded against the Applicants.
Judges
Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Unprotected Strike, Procedural Fairness, Trade Union Representation, Dismissal for Collective Misconduct, Service of Notices, Costs Award
Labour Law Unprotected Strike Procedural Fairness Trade Union Representation Dismissal for Collective Misconduct Service of Notices Costs Award

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SABAWO obo Members and Others

Applicant

Staffgro (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the Applicants for participating in an unprotected strike was procedurally fair.
  2. 2 Whether service of disciplinary hearing notices on the union constituted proper service to the individual employees.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicants were afforded an opportunity to state their case before dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Applicants participated in an unprotected strike, as confirmed by a prior court order. The Respondent made reasonable attempts to notify the Applicants of disciplinary hearings, including service of notices on the union, which represented the employees during the strike. The court held that service on the union constituted proper service under section 200 of the Labour Relations Act and relevant case law. The Applicants were afforded two opportunities to attend disciplinary hearings but failed to do so, persisting in their mistaken belief that the strike was protected. The court concluded that the dismissals were procedurally fair and not automatically unfair...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Dismissal of Applicants for unprotected strike action was procedurally fair. Costs awarded against the Applicants.

Orders

  • The dismissal of the individual Applicants for embarking on unprotected strike action is not automatically unfair in terms of section 187(1)(a) of the Labour Relations Act.
  • The dismissal of the individual Applicants was procedurally fair.