SATAWU obo Members v Command Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR437/01, J787/02) [2016] ZALCJHB 46 (10 February 2016)

SATAWU obo Members v Command Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR437/01, J787/02) [2016] ZALCJHB 46 (10 February 2016)

The court found that Command Security Services (Pty) Ltd was the employer liable to comply with the reinstatement order. There was no evidence that the suspensive conditions for the sale of the business to Ixia Trading 234 (Pty) Ltd were fulfilled, and Ixia never traded under the Command name. The first respondent continued to act as employer in meetings and negotiations with the union regarding reinstatement. The directors of the first respondent were aware of the Labour Court order prior to the contempt application. The respondents' version that they were not the employer and were unaware of the proceedings was rejected as improbable and unsupported by the evidence.

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 46
Parties
Applicant: SATAWU obo 212 Members; Respondent: Command Security Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mohammed Iqbal Parker; Respondent: Kalman Gordon Druker; Respondent: Maurice Musa Mdlolo; Respondent: Simon Banda; Respondent: Wilson Rich and Associates; Respondent: Stephen Van Diggele; Respondent: Susanna Hendrina Rentzke; Respondent: Chagan Jadav Vaghela; Respondent: Marius Potgieter; Respondent: Mohammed Shaffie Mowzer; Respondent: Ixia Trading 234 (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 February 2016
Case Number
JR437/01 & J787/02
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Oral Evidence Following Referral by Lagrange J
Outcome
Application granted. The first respondent is declared the employer liable to comply with the reinstatement order. Costs awarded against respondents jointly and severally.
Judges
AC Basson
Legal Topics
Section 197 Transfer, Reinstatement Order, Contempt of Court, Identity of Employer, Fraudulent Misrepresentation
Labour Law Civil Procedure Section 197 Transfer Reinstatement Order Contempt of Court Identity of Employer Fraudulent Misrepresentation

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SATAWU obo 212 Members

Applicant

Command Security Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Mohammed Iqbal Parker

Respondent

Kalman Gordon Druker

Respondent

Maurice Musa Mdlolo

Respondent

Simon Banda

Respondent

Wilson Rich and Associates

Respondent

Stephen Van Diggele

Respondent

Susanna Hendrina Rentzke

Respondent

Chagan Jadav Vaghela

Respondent

Marius Potgieter

Respondent

Mohammed Shaffie Mowzer

Respondent

Ixia Trading 234 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Oral Evidence Following Referral by Lagrange J

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is the true employer liable for complying with the Labour Court reinstatement order dated 26 August 2003.
  2. 2 Whether the directors of the first respondent knew of the Labour Court order before being served with the contempt application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Command Security Services (Pty) Ltd was the employer liable to comply with the reinstatement order. There was no evidence that the suspensive conditions for the sale of the business to Ixia Trading 234 (Pty) Ltd were fulfilled, and Ixia never traded under the Command name. The first respondent continued to act as employer in meetings and negotiations with the union regarding reinstatement. The directors of the first respondent were aware of the Labour Court order prior to the contempt application. The respondents' version that they were not the employer and were unaware of the proceedings was rejected as improbable and unsupported by the evidence.

Court Disposition

Application granted. The first respondent is declared the employer liable to comply with the reinstatement order. Costs awarded against respondents jointly and severally.

Orders

  • The first respondent is the employer liable to comply with the reinstatement order issued by the Labour Court on 26 August 2003.
  • The respondents before Court are ordered to pay the costs of this application jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.