Solidarity obo Bransby and Others v Debis Fleet Management (D682/02) [2011] ZALCD 20 (20 January 2011)

Solidarity obo Bransby and Others v Debis Fleet Management (D682/02) [2011] ZALCD 20 (20 January 2011)

The court found that the applicants were entitled to one month's notice of termination, which was not properly given by the respondent. The notice delivered on or about 14 December 2001 was insufficient, and termination should have occurred at the end of January 2002. Severance and termination benefits must therefore be recalculated based on a termination date of 31 January 2002. Regarding medical aid, the court held that section 4.7 of the Statutes, read with the Telkom Human Resource Manual, entitled the applicants to continued membership of a Telkom-approved medical aid scheme as pensioners. The respondent, having assumed the obligations of the previous employer under section 197 of...

Citation
[2011] ZALCD 20
Parties
Applicant: Solidarity obo G A Bransby; Applicant: Gerald Douglas Fairman; Applicant: Mervyn Graham Hull; Respondent: Debis Fleet Management
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 January 2011
Case Number
D682/02
Procedural Posture
Labour Litigation / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment in favour of the applicants.
Judges
Gush
Legal Topics
Section 197 Transfer, Notice Period, Severance Pay, Pension Fund Benefits, Medical Aid Entitlement
Labour Law Section 197 Transfer Notice Period Severance Pay Pension Fund Benefits Medical Aid Entitlement

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Solidarity obo G A Bransby

Applicant

Gerald Douglas Fairman

Applicant

Mervyn Graham Hull

Applicant

Debis Fleet Management

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Litigation / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were given adequate notice of termination of employment as required by their contracts.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was obliged to afford the applicants continued membership of the Telkom-approved medical aid scheme post retrenchment under section 4.7 of the Statutes.
  3. 3 Whether severance and termination benefits should have been calculated based on a termination date of 31 January 2002 rather than 31 December 2001.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were entitled to one month's notice of termination, which was not properly given by the respondent. The notice delivered on or about 14 December 2001 was insufficient, and termination should have occurred at the end of January 2002. Severance and termination benefits must therefore be recalculated based on a termination date of 31 January 2002. Regarding medical aid, the court held that section 4.7 of the Statutes, read with the Telkom Human Resource Manual, entitled the applicants to continued membership of a Telkom-approved medical aid scheme as pensioners. The respondent, having assumed the obligations of the previous employer under section 197 of...

Court Disposition

Judgment in favour of the applicants.

Orders

  • The termination of the applicants' employment on 31 December 2001 was premature; termination should have taken effect on 31 January 2002.
  • The respondent must recalculate, in consultation with the applicants, the severance and termination benefits based on a termination date of 31 January 2002 and pay any difference within one month of judgment.