Vector Logistics v Lencoane and Others (JA 26/11) [2013] ZALAC 31 (4 October 2013)

Vector Logistics v Lencoane and Others (JA 26/11) [2013] ZALAC 31 (4 October 2013)

The Labour Appeal Court held that the Labour Court had jurisdiction over all respondent employees, as there were two referrals to the CCMA, both properly conciliated, and certificates of non-resolution were issued. The change in starting time was a term and condition of employment for many respondents, not merely a work practice, and could not be unilaterally altered by the employer. The evidence did not support the appellant's contention that agreement to the change was reached. The dismissals were substantively unfair as the employer failed to engage in meaningful consultation and imposed the change under threat of disciplinary action. The disciplinary processes were procedurally unfair...

Citation
[2013] ZALAC 31
Parties
Appellant: Vector Logistics; Respondent: Michael Lencoane and 75 Others
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 October 2013
Case Number
JA 26/11
Procedural Posture
Labour Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment and Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; Labour Court orders upheld.
Judges
Waglay, Tlaletsi, Coppin
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Change to Terms and Conditions, Collective Bargaining, Procedural Fairness, Reinstatement, Jurisdiction of Labour Court
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Change to Terms and Conditions Collective Bargaining Procedural Fairness Reinstatement Jurisdiction of Labour Court

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

Parties

Vector Logistics

Appellant

Michael Lencoane and 75 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction over all respondent employees, including those not listed in the initial CCMA referral.
  2. 2 Whether the change in starting time constituted a unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment or a permissible change in work practice.
  3. 3 Whether the dismissals were substantively and procedurally fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court held that the Labour Court had jurisdiction over all respondent employees, as there were two referrals to the CCMA, both properly conciliated, and certificates of non-resolution were issued. The change in starting time was a term and condition of employment for many respondents, not merely a work practice, and could not be unilaterally altered by the employer. The evidence did not support the appellant's contention that agreement to the change was reached. The dismissals were substantively unfair as the employer failed to engage in meaningful consultation and imposed the change under threat of disciplinary action. The disciplinary processes were procedurally unfair...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; Labour Court orders upheld.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The orders of the Labour Court, including reinstatement and compensation, are confirmed.