South African Airways v Bogopa and Others (JA 36/05) [2007] ZALAC 10; [2007] 11 BLLR 1065 (LAC); (2007) 28 ILJ 2718 (LAC) (3 August 2007)

South African Airways v Bogopa and Others (JA 36/05) [2007] ZALAC 10; [2007] 11 BLLR 1065 (LAC); (2007) 28 ILJ 2718 (LAC) (3 August 2007)

The Labour Appeal Court held that the dismissal of the respondents was substantively unfair. The employer failed to justify its requirement that only some employees apply for positions in the new structure while others were appointed without applying, breaching the parity principle. The evidence showed that the respondents were competent to fill available positions and had a high likelihood of appointment if considered. The employer had vacancies that the respondents could perform without additional training, yet dismissed them for operational requirements. The procedural fairness argument failed because the respondents were given opportunities to consult, which they did not genuinely...

Citation
[2007] ZALAC 10
Parties
Appellant: South African Airways; Respondent: Mogagabo AVC Bogopa; Respondent: Lawrence Mabunda; Respondent: Sindy Angelique Mabe; Respondent: Victor Thomas Manganyi; Respondent: Bradley Sibusiso Zikhali; Respondent: Merylin Anne Powys; Respondent: Bavesh Desai
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 August 2007
Case Number
JA 36/05
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs. Compensation order of the Labour Court upheld.
Judges
Zondo JP, McCall AJA, Kruger AJA
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Retrenchment, Selection Criteria, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Last in First Out
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Retrenchment Selection Criteria Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Last in First Out

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African Airways

Appellant

Mogagabo AVC Bogopa

Respondent

Lawrence Mabunda

Respondent

Sindy Angelique Mabe

Respondent

Victor Thomas Manganyi

Respondent

Bradley Sibusiso Zikhali

Respondent

Merylin Anne Powys

Respondent

Bavesh Desai

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the dismissal of the respondents procedurally fair under the Labour Relations Act?
  2. 2 Was the dismissal substantively fair, i.e., for a fair reason based on operational requirements?
  3. 3 Did the employer apply fair and objective selection criteria in the restructuring process?

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court held that the dismissal of the respondents was substantively unfair. The employer failed to justify its requirement that only some employees apply for positions in the new structure while others were appointed without applying, breaching the parity principle. The evidence showed that the respondents were competent to fill available positions and had a high likelihood of appointment if considered. The employer had vacancies that the respondents could perform without additional training, yet dismissed them for operational requirements. The procedural fairness argument failed because the respondents were given opportunities to consult, which they did not genuinely...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs. Compensation order of the Labour Court upheld.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The order of compensation made by the Labour Court is upheld.