Security Retail Transport and Allied Workers union and Others v Wingprop (J124/98) [1998] ZALC 37 (21 June 1998)

Security Retail Transport and Allied Workers union and Others v Wingprop (J124/98) [1998] ZALC 37 (21 June 1998)

The court found that the dispute arising from the dismissal of the individual applicants was not settled at the meeting of 7 October 1998. The evidence did not support the respondent's claim of a concluded agreement, as some applicants were not present and the respondent's subsequent conduct contradicted its...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1998] ZALC 37
Parties
Applicant: Security Retail, Transport and Allied Workers Union of South Africa and others; Respondent: Wingprop C.C
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 June 1998
Case Number
J124/98
Procedural Posture
Labour Dismissal Application / Trial
Outcome
The dispute was not settled on 7 October 1998. The dismissal of the individual applicants was procedurally unfair. Compensation is awarded to the individual applicants. No order as to costs.
Judges
Mlambo
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Retrenchment, Section 189 Compliance
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Procedural Fairness Retrenchment Section 189 Compliance

Source-derived case record

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

Security Retail, Transport and Allied Workers Union of South Africa and others

Applicant

Wingprop C.C

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Dismissal Application / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the dispute arising from the dismissal of the individual applicants settled on or about 7 October 1998.
  2. 2 If not settled, was the dismissal procedurally and substantively fair as envisaged by section 189 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995.
  3. 3 If the dismissal was unfair, what relief should be granted to the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the dispute arising from the dismissal of the individual applicants was not settled at the meeting of 7 October 1998. The evidence did not support the respondent's claim of a concluded agreement, as some applicants were not present and the respondent's subsequent conduct contradicted its assertion. The dismissal was procedurally unfair due to non-compliance with section 189 of the Labour Relations Act. The respondent failed to consult properly before retrenchment and attempted to remedy the failure only after the decision had been made. The court held that compensation for six months should be awarded to each applicant, as procedural fairness was not observed and the...

Court Disposition

The dispute was not settled on 7 October 1998. The dismissal of the individual applicants was procedurally unfair. Compensation is awarded to the individual applicants. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The dispute was not settled on 7 October 1998.
  • The dismissal of the individual applicants was procedurally unfair.