Twine v Rubber Rollers (Pty) Ltd (D258/97) [1998] ZALC 56 (14 August 1998)

Twine v Rubber Rollers (Pty) Ltd (D258/97) [1998] ZALC 56 (14 August 1998)

The court found that the respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving procedural and substantive fairness in the dismissal of Mr Twine. The evidence did not establish that Mr Twine was informed or prepared for retrenchment, nor that he entered into an agreement accepting it. The respondent did not call Mr Peltz, whose testimony could have supported its version. As a result, the court held that the dismissal was procedurally unfair due to non-compliance with section 189 of the Labour Relations Act, and potentially substantively unfair as alternative options were not considered. The applicant was entitled to reinstatement, subject to repayment of monies received, and the respondent...

Citation
[1998] ZALC 56
Parties
Applicant: W.D.Twine; Respondent: Rubber Rollers (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 August 1998
Case Number
D258/97
Procedural Posture
Labour Dismissal / Trial Judgment
Outcome
The applicant is reinstated in his employment with the respondent, subject to repayment of all monies received. The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's costs.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Retrenchment, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Section 189 Consultation
Labour Law Retrenchment Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Section 189 Consultation

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W.D.Twine

Applicant

Rubber Rollers (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Dismissal / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the dismissal of Mr Twine procedurally and substantively fair under section 189 of the Labour Relations Act?
  2. 2 Did the employer comply with its consultation obligations prior to retrenchment?
  3. 3 Was there a valid agreement regarding the retrenchment package?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving procedural and substantive fairness in the dismissal of Mr Twine. The evidence did not establish that Mr Twine was informed or prepared for retrenchment, nor that he entered into an agreement accepting it. The respondent did not call Mr Peltz, whose testimony could have supported its version. As a result, the court held that the dismissal was procedurally unfair due to non-compliance with section 189 of the Labour Relations Act, and potentially substantively unfair as alternative options were not considered. The applicant was entitled to reinstatement, subject to repayment of monies received, and the respondent...

Court Disposition

The applicant is reinstated in his employment with the respondent, subject to repayment of all monies received. The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's costs.

Orders

  • The applicant is reinstated in his employment with the respondent with effect from 15 July 1997 on the terms and conditions which governed his employment on that date.
  • The applicant is to repay to the respondent all monies received by him by 2 December 1998.