Steyn and Others v Driefontein Consolidated Limited t/a West Driefontein (J1568/99) [2000] ZALC 115; [2001] 2 BLLR 239 (LC); (2001) 22 ILJ 231 (LC) (17 October 2000)

Steyn and Others v Driefontein Consolidated Limited t/a West Driefontein (J1568/99) [2000] ZALC 115; [2001] 2 BLLR 239 (LC); (2001) 22 ILJ 231 (LC) (17 October 2000)

The court found that while the Respondent established a commercial rationale for restructuring and retrenchment, it failed to afford the Applicants meaningful individual consultation regarding their selection and the criteria applied. The consultation process was conducted at a general level with unions and associations, but the Applicants were presented with their retrenchment as a fait accompli without an opportunity to debate or contest their individual circumstances. The court held that the procedural requirements of section 189 of the Labour Relations Act were not satisfied in respect of the Applicants, rendering their dismissals unfair for want of fair procedure. However,...

Citation
[2000] ZALC 115
Parties
Applicant: Jan Graham Steyn; Applicant: Slawomir Zbigniew Jarecki; Applicant: Roland Earl Ilott; Applicant: Wessel Johannes Gerber; Applicant: Ralph William Douglas Mapham; Applicant: Gerhardus Johannes Beukes; Applicant: Hennie Ferreira; Applicant: Abel Gerhardus Waldeck; Applicant: Henry Bowler; Respondent: Driefontein Consolidated Limited t/a West Driefontein
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 October 2000
Case Number
J1568/99
Procedural Posture
Labour Unfair Dismissal / Trial
Outcome
Dismissal of the Applicants was unfair for want of a fair procedure. Compensation awarded; reinstatement denied.
Judges
B M Jammy
Legal Topics
Retrenchment, Procedural Fairness, Collective Agreements, Consultation Requirements, Compensation for Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Retrenchment Procedural Fairness Collective Agreements Consultation Requirements 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jan Graham Steyn

Applicant

Slawomir Zbigniew Jarecki

Applicant

Roland Earl Ilott

Applicant

Wessel Johannes Gerber

Applicant

Ralph William Douglas Mapham

Applicant

Gerhardus Johannes Beukes

Applicant

Hennie Ferreira

Applicant

Abel Gerhardus Waldeck

Applicant

Henry Bowler

Applicant

Driefontein Consolidated Limited t/a West Driefontein

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Unfair Dismissal / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a need to retrench the Applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the consultation process regarding the Applicants' retrenchments was adequate and fair.
  3. 3 Whether the retrenchment agreements concluded applied to the Applicants and were complied with by the Respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the Respondent established a commercial rationale for restructuring and retrenchment, it failed to afford the Applicants meaningful individual consultation regarding their selection and the criteria applied. The consultation process was conducted at a general level with unions and associations, but the Applicants were presented with their retrenchment as a fait accompli without an opportunity to debate or contest their individual circumstances. The court held that the procedural requirements of section 189 of the Labour Relations Act were not satisfied in respect of the Applicants, rendering their dismissals unfair for want of fair procedure. However,...

Court Disposition

Dismissal of the Applicants was unfair for want of a fair procedure. Compensation awarded; reinstatement denied.

Orders

  • The termination by the Respondent of the employment of the First to Ninth Applicants was unfair for want of a fair procedure.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay to each of the First to Ninth Applicants an amount equivalent to 12 months remuneration, calculated at the rate of remuneration prevailing at the date of his dismissal but subject to deduction of the total amount received as a retrenchment package at the time of dismissal.