SACTWU and another v Discreto (JA95/97) [1998] ZALAC 9 (22 June 1998)

SACTWU and another v Discreto (JA95/97) [1998] ZALAC 9 (22 June 1998)

The court found that the respondent failed to consult with the union and employees prior to making a final decision to close the factory and retrench workers. The evidence showed that the decision was presented as a fait accompli, with no genuine opportunity for consultation or disclosure of the true reasons for closure. The respondent's reliance on hearsay evidence from its human resources manager was insufficient to establish a commercial rationale for retrenchment. The failure to consult before the final decision fatally tainted any subsequent attempts at consultation, rendering the retrenchment both procedurally and substantively unfair. The court set aside the industrial court's...

Citation
[1998] ZALAC 9
Parties
Appellant: South African Clothing and Textile Workers Union & Others; Respondent: Discreto, a division of Trump and Springbok Holdings
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 June 1998
Case Number
JA95/97
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Court Determination Under the Labour Relations Act, 1956
Outcome
Appeal upheld; industrial court determination set aside; retrenchment declared unfair.
Judges
Froneman, Myburgh, Nicholson
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Retrenchment, Consultation Requirements, Compensation for Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Labour Practice Retrenchment Consultation Requirements 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African Clothing and Textile Workers Union & Others

Appellant

Discreto, a division of Trump and Springbok Holdings

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Court Determination Under the Labour Relations Act, 1956

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the retrenchment of the appellants procedurally and substantively fair under the Labour Relations Act, 1956?
  2. 2 Did the respondent consult with the union and employees prior to making a final decision to close the factory and retrench workers?
  3. 3 Was sufficient information disclosed to enable a fair consultation process?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to consult with the union and employees prior to making a final decision to close the factory and retrench workers. The evidence showed that the decision was presented as a fait accompli, with no genuine opportunity for consultation or disclosure of the true reasons for closure. The respondent's reliance on hearsay evidence from its human resources manager was insufficient to establish a commercial rationale for retrenchment. The failure to consult before the final decision fatally tainted any subsequent attempts at consultation, rendering the retrenchment both procedurally and substantively unfair. The court set aside the industrial court's...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; industrial court determination set aside; retrenchment declared unfair.

Orders

  • The termination of the second and further applicants' employment by the respondent is declared an unfair labour practice.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay compensation equal to six months' salary to each of those applicants whose affidavits are contained in exhibit 'B' to the proceedings.