South African Allied Workers Union (In Liquidation) and Others v De Klerk NO and Another (518/90) [1992] ZASCA 28; 1992 (3) SA 1 (AD); [1992] 4 All SA 523 (AD); (1992) 13 ILJ 1123 (A) (13 March 1992)

South African Allied Workers Union (In Liquidation) and Others v De Klerk NO and Another (518/90) [1992] ZASCA 28; 1992 (3) SA 1 (AD); [1992] 4 All SA 523 (AD); (1992) 13 ILJ 1123 (A) (13 March 1992)

The court found that although the explanation for non-compliance with the rules was unsatisfactory, it was not so egregious as to warrant dismissal of the condonation application without considering prospects of success. Upon reviewing the merits, the court held that the industrial court's factual findings were not challenged and that the workers had engaged in an illegal strike, were warned of the consequences, and failed to return to work as agreed. The first respondent had considered the relevant facts, and his failure to specifically mention the 15:00 deadline did not amount to gross unreasonableness. The appellants' conduct justified their dismissal, which was lawful and fair. There...

Citation
[1992] ZASCA 28
Parties
Appellant: South African Allied Workers Union (in liquidation); Appellant: 99 Others (former employees of Hoover); Respondent: Advocate P P De Klerk NO; Respondent: Collondale Consumer Products (Pty) Ltd (incorporating Hoover)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 March 1992
Case Number
518/90
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Condonation of Late Filing and Appeal From Review Judgment
Outcome
Application for condonation dismissed with costs, including costs of appeal and two counsel. The order for costs occasioned by the postponement of 1 February 1990 is set aside and replaced with no order as to costs for that postponement.
Judges
Botha, Van Heerden, Smalberger, FH Grosskopf, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Condonation, Review of Administrative Action, Locus Standi, Illegal Strike
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Condonation Review of Administrative Action Locus Standi Illegal Strike

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African Allied Workers Union (in liquidation)

Appellant

99 Others (former employees of Hoover)

Appellant

Advocate P P De Klerk NO

Respondent

Collondale Consumer Products (Pty) Ltd (incorporating Hoover)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Condonation of Late Filing and Appeal From Review Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants' failure to comply with the rules of the Appellate Division should be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal regarding the review of the industrial court's decision.
  3. 3 Whether the dismissal of the appellants constituted an unfair labour practice under the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the explanation for non-compliance with the rules was unsatisfactory, it was not so egregious as to warrant dismissal of the condonation application without considering prospects of success. Upon reviewing the merits, the court held that the industrial court's factual findings were not challenged and that the workers had engaged in an illegal strike, were warned of the consequences, and failed to return to work as agreed. The first respondent had considered the relevant facts, and his failure to specifically mention the 15:00 deadline did not amount to gross unreasonableness. The appellants' conduct justified their dismissal, which was lawful and fair. There...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation dismissed with costs, including costs of appeal and two counsel. The order for costs occasioned by the postponement of 1 February 1990 is set aside and replaced with no order as to costs for that postponement.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is dismissed, with costs, such costs to include the second respondent's costs of appeal and the costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the court a quo directing the appellants to pay the costs caused by the postponement of 1 February 1990 is set aside and substituted with: 'No order is made as to the costs of the postponement of 1 February 1990.'