South African Transport and Allied Workers Union and Others v Collett Armed Security Services CC (JS 1280/2009) [2013] ZALCJHB 301 (3 October 2013)

South African Transport and Allied Workers Union and Others v Collett Armed Security Services CC (JS 1280/2009) [2013] ZALCJHB 301 (3 October 2013)

The court found that the respondent was bound by its pre-trial admission that the strike was protected and failed to establish exceptional circumstances to resile from that admission. The evidence demonstrated that the individual applicants were dismissed solely for participating in the protected strike, not for proven misconduct. The respondent's attempt to rely on derivative misconduct and collective guilt was rejected, as no individual applicant was identified as having committed misconduct, nor were they given an opportunity to respond to such allegations. The dismissal was therefore automatically unfair under section 187(1)(a) of the LRA. The court awarded compensation, considering...

Citation
[2013] ZALCJHB 301
Parties
Applicant: South African Transport and Allied Workers Union; Applicant: W Masina and 42 Others; Respondent: Collett Armed Security Services CC
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 October 2013
Case Number
JS 1280/2009
Procedural Posture
Automatic Unfair Dismissal Application / Trial Judgment
Outcome
The dismissal of the listed individual applicants was declared automatically unfair. Compensation was awarded to each applicant, with reduced compensation for two identified as having committed misconduct. Costs were awarded against the respondent.
Judges
Snyman AJ
Legal Topics
Automatic Unfair Dismissal, Protected Strike, Section 187 Lra, Compensation for Unfair Dismissal, Collective Guilt, Pre Trial Admissions
Labour Law Automatic Unfair Dismissal Protected Strike Section 187 Lra Compensation for Unfair Dismissal Collective Guilt Pre Trial Admissions

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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African Transport and Allied Workers Union

Applicant

W Masina and 42 Others

Applicant

Collett Armed Security Services CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Automatic Unfair Dismissal Application / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the individual applicants was automatically unfair in terms of section 187(1)(a) of the LRA due to participation in a protected strike.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was bound by its pre-trial admission that the strike was protected.
  3. 3 Whether misconduct or derivative misconduct was established against the individual applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent was bound by its pre-trial admission that the strike was protected and failed to establish exceptional circumstances to resile from that admission. The evidence demonstrated that the individual applicants were dismissed solely for participating in the protected strike, not for proven misconduct. The respondent's attempt to rely on derivative misconduct and collective guilt was rejected, as no individual applicant was identified as having committed misconduct, nor were they given an opportunity to respond to such allegations. The dismissal was therefore automatically unfair under section 187(1)(a) of the LRA. The court awarded compensation, considering...

Court Disposition

The dismissal of the listed individual applicants was declared automatically unfair. Compensation was awarded to each applicant, with reduced compensation for two identified as having committed misconduct. Costs were awarded against the respondent.

Orders

  • It is declared that the dismissal by the respondent of the listed individual applicants constitutes an automatic unfair dismissal as contemplated by section 187(1)(a) of the LRA.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay compensation of R27,300.00 to each individual applicant listed, except J P Maseko and N Gininda, within 10 days of the judgment.