Vision Integrated Workers Union and Others v Sandton Plant Hire (PTY) Ltd (JS 360/19) [2021] ZALCJHB 468 (29 April 2021)

Vision Integrated Workers Union and Others v Sandton Plant Hire (PTY) Ltd (JS 360/19) [2021] ZALCJHB 468 (29 April 2021)

The court found that the dismissals were related to participation in an unprotected strike, not automatically unfair dismissal based on union membership. Evidence showed that the applicants withdrew their services in pursuit of demands that were not justified under the collective agreement, and the respondent issued multiple ultimata which were ignored. However, the court determined that Mr Masina and Mr Makhathini were not on strike, as they were either instructed to stay away for safety reasons or did not participate in the concerted refusal to work. Their dismissals were both substantively and procedurally unfair, warranting reinstatement from the date of dismissal. For the remaining...

Citation
[2021] ZALCJHB 468
Parties
Applicant: Vision Integrated Workers Union; Applicant: William Modiba; Applicant: Joseph Masina; Applicant: The Dismissed Employees of Sandton Plant Hire (PTY) Ltd; Respondent: Sandton Plant Hire (PTY) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 April 2021
Case Number
JS 360/19
Procedural Posture
Strike Related Dismissal / Judgment
Outcome
The court ordered reinstatement of Mr Masina and Mr Makhathini from the date of dismissal, found the dismissal of the remaining applicants substantively fair but procedurally unfair, and awarded compensation equivalent to one month’s salary to each remaining applicant.
Judges
Mabaso
Legal Topics
Unprotected Strike, Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Reinstatement, Compensation for Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Unprotected Strike Automatically Unfair Dismissal Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Reinstatement Compensation for Unfair Dismissal

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vision Integrated Workers Union

Applicant

William Modiba

Applicant

Joseph Masina

Applicant

The Dismissed Employees of Sandton Plant Hire (PTY) Ltd

Applicant

Sandton Plant Hire (PTY) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Strike Related Dismissal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the dismissal of the applicants due to union membership or participation in an illegal industrial action.
  2. 2 What were the reasons for the reinstatement of Mr Masina and is reinstatement from the date of dismissal.
  3. 3 Was Mr Thami Makhathini part of the strike.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the dismissals were related to participation in an unprotected strike, not automatically unfair dismissal based on union membership. Evidence showed that the applicants withdrew their services in pursuit of demands that were not justified under the collective agreement, and the respondent issued multiple ultimata which were ignored. However, the court determined that Mr Masina and Mr Makhathini were not on strike, as they were either instructed to stay away for safety reasons or did not participate in the concerted refusal to work. Their dismissals were both substantively and procedurally unfair, warranting reinstatement from the date of dismissal. For the remaining...

Court Disposition

The court ordered reinstatement of Mr Masina and Mr Makhathini from the date of dismissal, found the dismissal of the remaining applicants substantively fair but procedurally unfair, and awarded compensation equivalent to one month’s salary to each remaining applicant.

Orders

  • The dismissal of Mr Joseph Masina by the respondent is both procedurally and substantively unfair. The respondent is ordered to reinstate Mr Joseph Masina from the date of dismissal.
  • The dismissal of Mr Makhathini by the respondent is both procedurally and substantively unfair. The respondent is ordered to reinstate Mr Makhathini from the date of dismissal.