South African Breweries v Food Allied Workers Union (J1038/97) [2002] ZALC 102 (2 December 2002)

South African Breweries v Food Allied Workers Union (J1038/97) [2002] ZALC 102 (2 December 2002)

The court found that SAB failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements for retrenchment as set out in the National Recognition Agreement and Section 189 of the Labour Relations Act. Notice of contemplated retrenchment was not properly given to the union, but only to shop stewards, some of whom were themselves at risk of retrenchment, undermining the union's ability to consult meaningfully. SAB's approach deliberately side-stepped the agreed process, and the failure to provide adequate information further compromised procedural fairness. As a result, the dismissals were procedurally unfair. The court determined that compensation equivalent to three and a half months'...

Citation
[2002] ZALC 102
Parties
Applicant: South African Breweries; Respondent: Food Allied Worker's Union
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 December 2002
Case Number
J1038/97
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment
Outcome
The dismissals were procedurally unfair. Compensation is awarded to the applicants.
Judges
Landman
Legal Topics
Retrenchment Procedure, Procedural Fairness, Collective Agreements, Compensation for Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Retrenchment Procedure Procedural Fairness Collective Agreements Compensation for Unfair Dismissal

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

Parties

South African Breweries

Applicant

Food Allied Worker's Union

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the dismissal of the applicants procedurally fair under the National Recognition Agreement and Section 189 of the Labour Relations Act?
  2. 2 Did the employer comply with the mandatory notice and consultation requirements before retrenchment?
  3. 3 Is compensation for procedural unfairness justified and, if so, what is the appropriate amount?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that SAB failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements for retrenchment as set out in the National Recognition Agreement and Section 189 of the Labour Relations Act. Notice of contemplated retrenchment was not properly given to the union, but only to shop stewards, some of whom were themselves at risk of retrenchment, undermining the union's ability to consult meaningfully. SAB's approach deliberately side-stepped the agreed process, and the failure to provide adequate information further compromised procedural fairness. As a result, the dismissals were procedurally unfair. The court determined that compensation equivalent to three and a half months'...

Court Disposition

The dismissals were procedurally unfair. Compensation is awarded to the applicants.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay compensation equivalent to three and a half months' remuneration to each applicant properly on record.
  • Interest is to run at the prescribed rate from the date of judgment until date of payment.