UNIMESHAWU obo Ngubane and Others v SMS Steel and Maintenance CC (JS903/2008) [2016] ZALCJHB 279 (24 March 2016)

UNIMESHAWU obo Ngubane and Others v SMS Steel and Maintenance CC (JS903/2008) [2016] ZALCJHB 279 (24 March 2016)

The court found that the respondent had no obligation to consult with UCIMESHAWU, as the applicants were not members of that union at the time the consultation process was concluded. The respondent had complied with section 189 of the Labour Relations Act by consulting with the representative trade unions, NUMSA and LEWUSA, of which the applicants were members. The applicants failed to provide evidence that they were members of UCIMESHAWU during the relevant period or that the LIFO selection criteria was unfairly applied. The court held that the dismissals were both substantively and procedurally fair, and dismissed the applicants' claim with costs.

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 279
Parties
Applicant: UNIMESHAWU obo Vincent Ngubane & 6 Others; Respondent: SMS Steel and Maintenance CC
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 March 2016
Case Number
JS903/2008
Procedural Posture
Unfair Dismissal Application / Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Walele
Legal Topics
Retrenchment, Section 189 Consultation, Trade Union Representation, Selection Criteria Lifo, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness
Labour Law Retrenchment Section 189 Consultation Trade Union Representation Selection Criteria Lifo Procedural Fairness 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UNIMESHAWU obo Vincent Ngubane & 6 Others

Applicant

SMS Steel and Maintenance CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Dismissal Application / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was obliged to consult with the trade union UCIMESHAWU during the retrenchment process.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were members of UCIMESHAWU at the relevant time for consultation.
  3. 3 Whether the selection criteria of LIFO was applied fairly and objectively.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent had no obligation to consult with UCIMESHAWU, as the applicants were not members of that union at the time the consultation process was concluded. The respondent had complied with section 189 of the Labour Relations Act by consulting with the representative trade unions, NUMSA and LEWUSA, of which the applicants were members. The applicants failed to provide evidence that they were members of UCIMESHAWU during the relevant period or that the LIFO selection criteria was unfairly applied. The court held that the dismissals were both substantively and procedurally fair, and dismissed the applicants' claim with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicants' claim that their dismissal on the grounds of operational requirements was substantively and procedurally unfair is dismissed with costs.