Solidarity obo Strydom & 5 Others v State Information Technology Agency SOC Ltd (C 148/18; JS 49/18; JS 67/18 JS 68/18; JS 338/18; JS 195/18) [2022] ZALCJHB 95; (2022) 43 ILJ 1881 (LC); [2022] 9 BLLR 843 (LC) (9 May 2022)

Solidarity obo Strydom & 5 Others v State Information Technology Agency SOC Ltd (C 148/18; JS 49/18; JS 67/18 JS 68/18; JS 338/18; JS 195/18) [2022] ZALCJHB 95; (2022) 43 ILJ 1881 (LC); [2022] 9 BLLR 843 (LC) (9 May 2022)

The court found that the normal retirement age for the applicant employees was 60 years, as stipulated in the Pension Fund Rules and employment contracts. The applicants continued to work beyond this age, but there was no written agreement or amendment extending their employment to age 67. The salary adjustment letters did not constitute written consent to extend employment beyond the normal retirement age; they only addressed salary increases. The court held that section 187(2)(b) of the LRA provides that a dismissal based on age is fair if the employee has reached the normal or agreed retirement age. The prerequisites for relying on normal or agreed retirement age are mutually...

Citation
[2022] ZALCJHB 95
Parties
Applicant: Solidarity obo Gerhardus Viljoen Strydom & 5 Others; Respondent: State Information Technology Agency SOC Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 May 2022
Case Number
C 148/18; JS 49/18; JS 67/18; JS 68/18; JS 338/18; JS 195/18
Procedural Posture
Labour Court Action / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Applicants' claims dismissed. Dismissal found to be fair as employees had reached normal retirement age. No order as to costs.
Judges
Nkutha-Nkontwana
Legal Topics
Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Retirement Age, Section 187 Lra, Employment Contract Interpretation, Pension Fund Rules
Labour Law Automatically Unfair Dismissal Retirement Age Section 187 Lra Employment Contract Interpretation Pension Fund Rules

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Solidarity obo Gerhardus Viljoen Strydom & 5 Others

Applicant

State Information Technology Agency SOC Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Court Action / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the applicant employees based on age was automatically unfair in terms of section 187(1)(f) of the LRA.
  2. 2 Whether SITA tacitly or expressly agreed to a new retirement age beyond the normal retirement age of 60 years.
  3. 3 Whether the salary adjustment letters constituted written consent to extend employment beyond the normal retirement age.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the normal retirement age for the applicant employees was 60 years, as stipulated in the Pension Fund Rules and employment contracts. The applicants continued to work beyond this age, but there was no written agreement or amendment extending their employment to age 67. The salary adjustment letters did not constitute written consent to extend employment beyond the normal retirement age; they only addressed salary increases. The court held that section 187(2)(b) of the LRA provides that a dismissal based on age is fair if the employee has reached the normal or agreed retirement age. The prerequisites for relying on normal or agreed retirement age are mutually...

Court Disposition

Applicants' claims dismissed. Dismissal found to be fair as employees had reached normal retirement age. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applicants’ claims are dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.