Sikhosana and Others v Sasol Synthetic Fuels (J 949/98) [1999] ZALC 156 (9 October 1999)

Sikhosana and Others v Sasol Synthetic Fuels (J 949/98) [1999] ZALC 156 (9 October 1999)

The court held that the applicants' dismissal was for operational reasons and followed a collective agreement binding the majority unions. The respondent was not obliged to consult with UPUSA, as the hierarchy in section 189(1) of the Labour Relations Act prioritizes collective agreements. The consultation process was found to be fair and non-discriminatory. There is no statutory or equitable duty on employers to seek positions for retrenchees with outside contractors. The applicants' claim to a contractual right to employment until retirement age was dismissed as baseless. The application was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicants, but not against UPUSA, as its support...

Citation
[1999] ZALC 156
Parties
Applicant: Siphiwe Sikhosana and Others; Respondent: Sasol Synthetic Fuels
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 October 1999
Case Number
J 949/98
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs against the applicants; no costs order against UPUSA.
Judges
M S M Brassey
Legal Topics
Retrenchment, Collective Agreements, Consultation With Unions, Unfair Dismissal, Operational Requirements, Severance Pay
Labour Law Retrenchment Collective Agreements Consultation With Unions Unfair Dismissal Operational Requirements Severance Pay

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siphiwe Sikhosana and Others

Applicant

Sasol Synthetic Fuels

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' dismissal for operational reasons was unfair.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was obliged to consult with UPUSA prior to dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was required to take steps to place retrenchees with outside contractors.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants' dismissal was for operational reasons and followed a collective agreement binding the majority unions. The respondent was not obliged to consult with UPUSA, as the hierarchy in section 189(1) of the Labour Relations Act prioritizes collective agreements. The consultation process was found to be fair and non-discriminatory. There is no statutory or equitable duty on employers to seek positions for retrenchees with outside contractors. The applicants' claim to a contractual right to employment until retirement age was dismissed as baseless. The application was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicants, but not against UPUSA, as its support...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs against the applicants; no costs order against UPUSA.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicants must pay the respondent's costs jointly and severally.