Sayles v Tartan Steel CC (J1384/97) [1999] ZALC 9 (22 January 1999)

Sayles v Tartan Steel CC (J1384/97) [1999] ZALC 9 (22 January 1999)

The court found that the respondent did not contemplate dismissing the applicant as a result of the closure of the slitting division, as evidenced by the lack of notice to the applicant and the proper consultation process followed with other affected employees and unions. The probabilities favored the respondent's version that a discussion took place in July 1997, during which the applicant accepted redeployment. The respondent's failure to comply with section 189 regarding the applicant was directly attributable to the applicant's acceptance of the alternative position. Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to compensation for procedural unfairness. Regarding costs, although the...

Citation
[1999] ZALC 9
Parties
Applicant: Malcolm Sayles; Respondent: Tartan Steel CC
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 January 1999
Case Number
J1384/97
Procedural Posture
Compensation Application / Post Merits Judgment
Outcome
Application for compensation dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Mlambo
Legal Topics
Retrenchment Procedure, Section 189 Compliance, Compensation for Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Retrenchment Procedure Section 189 Compliance 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malcolm Sayles

Applicant

Tartan Steel CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Compensation Application / Post Merits Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation for the respondent's failure to comply with section 189 of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's conduct constituted sufficient consultation with the applicant regarding retrenchment.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded to either party.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent did not contemplate dismissing the applicant as a result of the closure of the slitting division, as evidenced by the lack of notice to the applicant and the proper consultation process followed with other affected employees and unions. The probabilities favored the respondent's version that a discussion took place in July 1997, during which the applicant accepted redeployment. The respondent's failure to comply with section 189 regarding the applicant was directly attributable to the applicant's acceptance of the alternative position. Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to compensation for procedural unfairness. Regarding costs, although the...

Court Disposition

Application for compensation dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applicant is not entitled to compensation.
  • There is no order as to costs.