Swanepoel and Others v Fidelity Corporate Services (Pty) Ltd (JS 444/05) [2008] ZALC 53; [2008] 8 BLLR 806 (LC) (24 April 2008)

Swanepoel and Others v Fidelity Corporate Services (Pty) Ltd (JS 444/05) [2008] ZALC 53; [2008] 8 BLLR 806 (LC) (24 April 2008)

The court found that the applicants' dismissals were based on a fair operational reason, namely the restructuring and unbundling of the respondent to pursue business opportunities and attract black economic empowerment partners. The applicants conceded that their positions no longer existed within the respondent and that there were no alternative positions available. The appointments made by FMCS were not transfers as a going concern under section 197 of the LRA, but independent appointments by an autonomous entity. The respondent was not obliged to secure employment for the applicants in FMCS. The dismissals were therefore substantively fair, and the applicants' claim was dismissed.

Citation
[2008] ZALC 53
Parties
Applicant: Stephanus Petrus Swanepoel; Applicant: Jocobus Hermanus; Applicant: Engelbbertus Smith; Respondent: Fidelity Corporate Services (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 April 2008
Case Number
JS 444/05
Procedural Posture
Unfair Dismissal Application / Trial
Outcome
Applicants' claim dismissed; dismissals found substantively fair.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Operational Requirements, Section 189a, Section 197 Transfer, Substantive Fairness
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Operational Requirements Section 189a Section 197 Transfer Substantive Fairness

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephanus Petrus Swanepoel

Applicant

Jocobus Hermanus

Applicant

Engelbbertus Smith

Applicant

Fidelity Corporate Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Dismissal Application / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' dismissals were effected for a substantively fair reason and in a procedurally fair manner.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to any relief.
  3. 3 Which party should pay legal costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' dismissals were based on a fair operational reason, namely the restructuring and unbundling of the respondent to pursue business opportunities and attract black economic empowerment partners. The applicants conceded that their positions no longer existed within the respondent and that there were no alternative positions available. The appointments made by FMCS were not transfers as a going concern under section 197 of the LRA, but independent appointments by an autonomous entity. The respondent was not obliged to secure employment for the applicants in FMCS. The dismissals were therefore substantively fair, and the applicants' claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applicants' claim dismissed; dismissals found substantively fair.

Orders

  • The dismissal of the applicants was substantively fair.
  • The applicants' claim is dismissed.