South African Typographical Union v Kohler Flexible Packaging (Cape) (CA2/2001) [2002] ZALAC 10; [2002] 7 BLLR 605 (LAC); (2002) 23 ILJ 1248 (LAC) (8 May 2002)

South African Typographical Union v Kohler Flexible Packaging (Cape) (CA2/2001) [2002] ZALAC 10; [2002] 7 BLLR 605 (LAC); (2002) 23 ILJ 1248 (LAC) (8 May 2002)

The court held that section 41(2) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act establishes a statutory minimum for severance pay, not a mandatory formula for all severance payments. Where an employer pays more than the statutory minimum, there is no obligation to include shift allowances unless specifically agreed. Section 35(5) does not expand the definition of remuneration for severance pay beyond what is required for the statutory minimum. The appellant failed to prove any agreement or contractual obligation requiring the inclusion of the shift allowance. The respondent's severance payments exceeded the statutory minimum and were not required to include the shift allowance. The appeal was...

Citation
[2002] ZALAC 10
Parties
Appellant: South African Typographical Union (obo J.G. Van As & 6 Others); Respondent: Kohler Flexible Packaging (Cape), a division of Kohler Packaging Limited
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 May 2002
Case Number
CA2/2001
Procedural Posture
Labour Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
JHM Traverso, RMM Zondo, CR Nicholson
Legal Topics
Severance Pay, Shift Allowance, Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Collective Agreement Interpretation
Labour Law Severance Pay Shift Allowance Basic Conditions of Employment Act Collective Agreement Interpretation

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African Typographical Union (obo J.G. Van As & 6 Others)

Appellant

Kohler Flexible Packaging (Cape), a division of Kohler Packaging Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was obliged to include the shift allowance in the calculation of severance pay for retrenched employees.
  2. 2 Whether section 41(2) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act requires severance pay to include shift allowances when the amount paid exceeds the statutory minimum.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent breached a corporate policy or contract by excluding the shift allowance from severance pay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 41(2) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act establishes a statutory minimum for severance pay, not a mandatory formula for all severance payments. Where an employer pays more than the statutory minimum, there is no obligation to include shift allowances unless specifically agreed. Section 35(5) does not expand the definition of remuneration for severance pay beyond what is required for the statutory minimum. The appellant failed to prove any agreement or contractual obligation requiring the inclusion of the shift allowance. The respondent's severance payments exceeded the statutory minimum and were not required to include the shift allowance. The appeal was...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.