Scheme Data Service (Pty) Ltd v Myhill NO and Others (JA7/09) [2010] ZALAC 45 (1 October 2010)

Scheme Data Service (Pty) Ltd v Myhill NO and Others (JA7/09) [2010] ZALAC 45 (1 October 2010)

The Labour Appeal Court found that the appellant failed to comply with section 189(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act by not disclosing or consulting on alternatives to dismissal, specifically the possibility of a voucher clerk position. The employer bears the onus to initiate and prove that dismissal was a last resort and fair. The failure to consult on known alternatives rendered the dismissal both procedurally and substantively unfair. The compensation awarded by the commissioner was scrutinized, with one judge finding it excessive due to failure to consider all relevant factors, including the redundancy of the position, the salary differential, and the period of unemployment. The...

Citation
[2010] ZALAC 45
Parties
Appellant: Scheme Data Service (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: E Myhill N.O; Respondent: The Commissioner for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: G Simpson
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 October 2010
Case Number
JA 7/09
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment and Arbitration Award
Outcome
The appeal succeeds in part; the finding of unfair dismissal is confirmed, but the compensation award is reduced.
Judges
Waglay DJP, Tlaletsi JA, C.J. Musi AJA
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Retrenchment Procedure, Compensation Award, Section 189 Consultation, Operational Requirements, Onus of Proof
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Retrenchment Procedure Compensation Award Section 189 Consultation Operational Requirements Onus of Proof

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scheme Data Service (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

E Myhill N.O

Respondent

The Commissioner for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

G Simpson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment and Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the third respondent was substantively and procedurally unfair.
  2. 2 Whether the employer complied with section 189(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act regarding alternatives to dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether the compensation awarded by the commissioner was excessive and justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court found that the appellant failed to comply with section 189(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act by not disclosing or consulting on alternatives to dismissal, specifically the possibility of a voucher clerk position. The employer bears the onus to initiate and prove that dismissal was a last resort and fair. The failure to consult on known alternatives rendered the dismissal both procedurally and substantively unfair. The compensation awarded by the commissioner was scrutinized, with one judge finding it excessive due to failure to consider all relevant factors, including the redundancy of the position, the salary differential, and the period of unemployment. The...

Court Disposition

The appeal succeeds in part; the finding of unfair dismissal is confirmed, but the compensation award is reduced.

Orders

  • The order of the Labour Court is set aside and replaced.
  • The award of the First Respondent under CCMA case no. GA 37354-03 dated 1 June 2006 is confirmed regarding the finding of unfair dismissal.