SASBO v Standard Bank of South Africa (J2298/10) [2010] ZALC 173; (2011) 32 ILJ 1236 (LC) (12 November 2010)

SASBO v Standard Bank of South Africa (J2298/10) [2010] ZALC 173; (2011) 32 ILJ 1236 (LC) (12 November 2010)

The court found that while the consultation process between SASBO and Standard Bank was brief and not as substantial as required for a genuine joint consensus-seeking process, the union failed to assert its rights at the appropriate time. The bank acted in accordance with the collective agreement and provided information as required, but did not supply sufficient detail regarding targeted savings and alternatives to retrenchment. The court held that meaningful consultation requires disclosure of financial objectives and alternatives, and that both parties must actively engage. The relief sought by SASBO to halt individual consultations and extend the retrenchment timetable was not...

Citation
[2010] ZALC 173
Parties
Applicant: SASBO; Respondent: Standard Bank of South Africa
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 November 2010
Case Number
J2298/10
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application Under Section 189 A(13) of the LRA for Urgent Relief Prior to Retrenchment
Outcome
Application partially granted. Structured further consultation ordered; no interdict against individual consultations or extension of retrenchment timetable.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Retrenchment Procedure, Section 189a Application, Consultation Requirements, Operational Requirements Dismissal, Collective Agreement, Urgent Interdict
Labour Law Retrenchment Procedure Section 189a Application Consultation Requirements Operational Requirements Dismissal Collective Agreement Urgent Interdict

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SASBO

Applicant

Standard Bank of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application Under Section 189 A(13) of the LRA for Urgent Relief Prior to Retrenchment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent complied with section 189A and the Code of Good Practice on Dismissal based on Operational Requirements prior to retrenching members of the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the consultation process between the union and the bank was meaningful and sufficient as required by law.
  3. 3 Whether the bank should be compelled to disclose information regarding alternative measures to avoid retrenchment and expected savings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the consultation process between SASBO and Standard Bank was brief and not as substantial as required for a genuine joint consensus-seeking process, the union failed to assert its rights at the appropriate time. The bank acted in accordance with the collective agreement and provided information as required, but did not supply sufficient detail regarding targeted savings and alternatives to retrenchment. The court held that meaningful consultation requires disclosure of financial objectives and alternatives, and that both parties must actively engage. The relief sought by SASBO to halt individual consultations and extend the retrenchment timetable was not...

Court Disposition

Application partially granted. Structured further consultation ordered; no interdict against individual consultations or extension of retrenchment timetable.

Orders

  • The undertakings in the bank's letter to SASBO of 11 November 2010 are placed on record.
  • If consensus is not reached on ways to avoid or minimize retrenchments, the parties must hold two further meetings at least one working day apart before 1 December 2010.