Visser v Sanlam (CA9/00) [2000] ZALAC 30; [2001] 3 BLLR 313 (LAC); (2001) 22 ILJ 666 (LAC) (14 December 2000)

Visser v Sanlam (CA9/00) [2000] ZALAC 30; [2001] 3 BLLR 313 (LAC); (2001) 22 ILJ 666 (LAC) (14 December 2000)

The court held that the respondent fulfilled its procedural obligations under section 189(2) of the Labour Relations Act. The appellant, as a member of the project team, had access to all relevant information and was in a position to engage meaningfully in the consultation process. The evidence showed that numerous meetings were held, and the appellant was kept informed of developments, including the breakdown in negotiations with BSW. The court found no basis for concluding that the appellant was denied adequate information or opportunity to mitigate the adverse effects of her dismissal. The consultation process was not unfair, and any failure to engage was attributable to the appellant....

Citation
[2000] ZALAC 30
Parties
Appellant: Winda Visser; Respondent: Sanlam
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 December 2000
Case Number
CA9/00
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment; Cross Appeal on Costs
Outcome
The appeal and the cross-appeal are dismissed. No order as to costs is made in either the Labour Appeal Court or the court a quo.
Judges
Davis, Zondo, Goldstein
Legal Topics
Retrenchment, Procedural Fairness, Section 189 Consultation, Outsourcing, Severance Pay
Labour Law Civil Procedure Retrenchment Procedural Fairness Section 189 Consultation Outsourcing Severance Pay

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

Winda Visser

Appellant

Sanlam

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment; Cross Appeal on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent complied with the procedural requirements of section 189(2) of the Labour Relations Act in the retrenchment of the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the consultation process regarding outsourcing and retrenchment was fair and adequate.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was provided with sufficient information and opportunity to mitigate the adverse effects of dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondent fulfilled its procedural obligations under section 189(2) of the Labour Relations Act. The appellant, as a member of the project team, had access to all relevant information and was in a position to engage meaningfully in the consultation process. The evidence showed that numerous meetings were held, and the appellant was kept informed of developments, including the breakdown in negotiations with BSW. The court found no basis for concluding that the appellant was denied adequate information or opportunity to mitigate the adverse effects of her dismissal. The consultation process was not unfair, and any failure to engage was attributable to the appellant....

Court Disposition

The appeal and the cross-appeal are dismissed. No order as to costs is made in either the Labour Appeal Court or the court a quo.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The cross-appeal is dismissed.