Screenex Wire Weaving Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd v Ngema and Others (JA 49/07) [2009] ZALAC 10; (2010) 31 ILJ 361 (LAC) ; [2010] 1 BLLR 39 (LAC) (2 September 2009)

Screenex Wire Weaving Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd v Ngema and Others (JA 49/07) [2009] ZALAC 10; (2010) 31 ILJ 361 (LAC) ; [2010] 1 BLLR 39 (LAC) (2 September 2009)

The Labour Appeal Court held that the dismissal of the individual respondents was both procedurally and substantively unfair. Procedurally, the appellant failed to provide UPUSA with financial statements necessary for meaningful consultation and did not invite UPUSA to the final consultation meeting after the statements became available. Substantively, the use of FIFO as a selection criterion was not agreed upon and was not fair or objective, as it resulted in the dismissal of long-serving employees without justification. The Court affirmed the Labour Court's order of reinstatement, noting that the injustice of the original retrenchment required reversal and that subsequent changes in the...

Citation
[2009] ZALAC 10
Parties
Appellant: Screenex Wire Weaving Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Jafter Ngema & Others
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 September 2009
Case Number
JA 49/07
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; reinstatement of individual respondents confirmed.
Judges
Zondo JP, Jappie JA, Leeuw JA
Legal Topics
Retrenchment, Selection Criteria, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Consultation Requirements, Reinstatement
Labour Law Civil Procedure Retrenchment Selection Criteria Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Consultation Requirements Reinstatement

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Screenex Wire Weaving Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Jafter Ngema & Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the dismissal of the individual respondents procedurally fair under section 189 of the Labour Relations Act?
  2. 2 Was the dismissal substantively fair, particularly regarding the selection criteria used?
  3. 3 Was the order of reinstatement by the Labour Court appropriate given the circumstances?

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court held that the dismissal of the individual respondents was both procedurally and substantively unfair. Procedurally, the appellant failed to provide UPUSA with financial statements necessary for meaningful consultation and did not invite UPUSA to the final consultation meeting after the statements became available. Substantively, the use of FIFO as a selection criterion was not agreed upon and was not fair or objective, as it resulted in the dismissal of long-serving employees without justification. The Court affirmed the Labour Court's order of reinstatement, noting that the injustice of the original retrenchment required reversal and that subsequent changes in the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; reinstatement of individual respondents confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The order of reinstatement of the individual respondents with retrospective effect is confirmed.