SATAWU obo Rune v Bosasa Security (Pty) Ltd (C 527/06) [2013] ZALCCT 11; (2013) 34 ILJ 3305 (LC) (13 May 2013)

SATAWU obo Rune v Bosasa Security (Pty) Ltd (C 527/06) [2013] ZALCCT 11; (2013) 34 ILJ 3305 (LC) (13 May 2013)

The court found that the real reason for the applicants' dismissal was their participation in a protected national strike, not mere absence without permission. The respondent was aware of the strike and the union membership of the applicants. The disciplinary process was used as a pretext to dismiss striking workers, which is prohibited under section 187(1)(a) of the LRA. The court applied the objective test for causation, concluding that but for the strike, the dismissals would not have occurred. The dismissals were therefore automatically unfair. The court awarded compensation of 15 months' remuneration to each applicant, considering the punitive and deterrent purpose of compensation in...

Citation
[2013] ZALCCT 11
Parties
Applicant: SATAWU obo Rune and Others; Respondent: Bosasa Security (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 May 2013
Case Number
C 527/06
Procedural Posture
Labour Unfair Dismissal / Trial Judgment
Outcome
The applicants' dismissals were declared automatically unfair. Compensation of 15 months' wages was awarded to each applicant listed in schedule 'C', except for those no longer before the court. Costs were awarded to the applicants.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Protected Strike, Compensation, Organisational Rights, Section 187 Lra
Labour Law Automatically Unfair Dismissal Protected Strike Compensation Organisational Rights Section 187 Lra

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SATAWU obo Rune and Others

Applicant

Bosasa Security (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Unfair Dismissal / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the dismissal of the applicants automatically unfair under section 187(1)(a) of the LRA due to participation in a protected strike?
  2. 2 Is the respondent's stated reason of absence without permission a valid ground for dismissal in the context of a protected strike?
  3. 3 What is the appropriate compensation for the applicants following a finding of automatically unfair dismissal?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the real reason for the applicants' dismissal was their participation in a protected national strike, not mere absence without permission. The respondent was aware of the strike and the union membership of the applicants. The disciplinary process was used as a pretext to dismiss striking workers, which is prohibited under section 187(1)(a) of the LRA. The court applied the objective test for causation, concluding that but for the strike, the dismissals would not have occurred. The dismissals were therefore automatically unfair. The court awarded compensation of 15 months' remuneration to each applicant, considering the punitive and deterrent purpose of compensation in...

Court Disposition

The applicants' dismissals were declared automatically unfair. Compensation of 15 months' wages was awarded to each applicant listed in schedule 'C', except for those no longer before the court. Costs were awarded to the applicants.

Orders

  • The dismissal of the individual applicants by the respondent is declared to be automatically unfair.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay each of the applicants in schedule ‘C’ (except for applicants number 1, 10, 12, 16, 19, 20, 21, 24 and 25) compensation in the amount of R22 500, being the equivalent of 15 months’ wages at the time of their dismissal.