SACTWU and Others v Rubin Sportswear (C992/2001, C1006/2001, C185/2002, C186/2002) [2002] ZALC 95; (2003) 24 ILJ 429 (LC); [2003] 5 BLLR 505 (LC) (15 November 2002)

SACTWU and Others v Rubin Sportswear (C992/2001, C1006/2001, C185/2002, C186/2002) [2002] ZALC 95; (2003) 24 ILJ 429 (LC); [2003] 5 BLLR 505 (LC) (15 November 2002)

The court found that the respondent failed to establish that 60 was the normal or agreed retirement age for the applicants. The evidence did not support the existence of a retirement policy at Val Hau, nor did it show that the shopstewards committee agreed to the respondent's proposed retirement age. The respondent's presentation of the policy was not a genuine consultation but a unilateral imposition. The provident fund rules did not stipulate a compulsory retirement age, and the alleged practice at Val Hau was not substantiated. Consequently, the dismissals were based on age and constituted automatically unfair dismissals under section 187(1)(f) of the Labour Relations Act. The court...

Citation
[2002] ZALC 95
Parties
Applicant: SACTWU; Applicant: J. Hendricks; Applicant: P. May; Applicant: A. Fischer; Applicant: Q. Adams; Respondent: Rubin Sportswear
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 November 2002
Case Number
C992/2001, C1006/2001, C185/2002, C186/2002
Procedural Posture
Labour Unfair Dismissal / Trial
Outcome
The dismissal of the second to fifth applicants was declared automatically unfair. Compensation was awarded to each applicant for unfair dismissal. No order as to costs was made.
Judges
Waglay
Legal Topics
Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Retirement Age, Age Discrimination, Section 187 Lra, Consultation With Union
Labour Law Automatically Unfair Dismissal Retirement Age Age Discrimination Section 187 Lra Consultation With Union

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

Parties

SACTWU

Applicant

J. Hendricks

Applicant

P. May

Applicant

A. Fischer

Applicant

Q. Adams

Applicant

Rubin Sportswear

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Unfair Dismissal / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the second to fifth applicants on the grounds of age constituted automatically unfair dismissal under section 187(1)(f) of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the retirement age of 60 was the normal or agreed retirement age for the applicants.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent properly consulted with the union regarding the retirement policy.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to establish that 60 was the normal or agreed retirement age for the applicants. The evidence did not support the existence of a retirement policy at Val Hau, nor did it show that the shopstewards committee agreed to the respondent's proposed retirement age. The respondent's presentation of the policy was not a genuine consultation but a unilateral imposition. The provident fund rules did not stipulate a compulsory retirement age, and the alleged practice at Val Hau was not substantiated. Consequently, the dismissals were based on age and constituted automatically unfair dismissals under section 187(1)(f) of the Labour Relations Act. The court...

Court Disposition

The dismissal of the second to fifth applicants was declared automatically unfair. Compensation was awarded to each applicant for unfair dismissal. No order as to costs was made.

Orders

  • The dismissal of the second to fifth applicants was unfair as provided for in section 187(1)(f) of the Labour Relations Act (as amended).
  • Respondent must pay the following compensation consequent upon their unfair dismissal: to J. Hendricks the sum of R17,264.00; to P. May the sum of R14,079.00; to A. Fischer the sum of R11,414.00; to Q. Adams the sum of R12,532.00.