Selvan v Crossroads Distribution (Pty) Ltd (JA 25/22) [2023] ZALAC 2; [2023] 3 BLLR 221 (LAC); (2023) 44 ILJ 1030 (LAC) (16 January 2023)

Selvan v Crossroads Distribution (Pty) Ltd (JA 25/22) [2023] ZALAC 2; [2023] 3 BLLR 221 (LAC); (2023) 44 ILJ 1030 (LAC) (16 January 2023)

The Labour Appeal Court held that the appellant was not entitled to ventilate procedural unfairness in respect of his retrenchment, as the Labour Court had previously granted condonation only for the substantive fairness leg of the dispute and refused condonation for the procedural leg. This order was binding and not appealed. The retrenchment process followed by the respondent was coherent and rational, with proper notice given to all affected HR department members. The appellant's assumption that he was not at risk was unfounded. The restructuring of the HR function into the group management company made the appellant's position redundant, and the retention of the skills facilitator was...

Citation
[2023] ZALAC 2
Parties
Appellant: Bryan David Selvan; Respondent: Crossroads Distribution (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 January 2023
Case Number
JA 25/22
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment Dismissing Claims of Unfair Dismissal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
Sutherland, Coppin, Phatshoane
Legal Topics
Retrenchment, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Section 189a Process, Condonation, Selection Criteria
Labour Law Retrenchment Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Section 189a Process Condonation Selection Criteria

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bryan David Selvan

Appellant

Crossroads Distribution (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment Dismissing Claims of Unfair Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was entitled to challenge the procedural fairness of his retrenchment under section 189A of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the retrenchment of the appellant was substantively unfair.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Court correctly limited the scope of the dispute to substantive fairness only.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court held that the appellant was not entitled to ventilate procedural unfairness in respect of his retrenchment, as the Labour Court had previously granted condonation only for the substantive fairness leg of the dispute and refused condonation for the procedural leg. This order was binding and not appealed. The retrenchment process followed by the respondent was coherent and rational, with proper notice given to all affected HR department members. The appellant's assumption that he was not at risk was unfounded. The restructuring of the HR function into the group management company made the appellant's position redundant, and the retention of the skills facilitator was...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.