Visser v Sanlam (C105/99) [2000] ZALC 18 (23 March 2000)

Visser v Sanlam (C105/99) [2000] ZALC 18 (23 March 2000)

The court found that the respondent had identified retrenchment as a possibility at an early stage and had engaged in a thorough consultation process spanning several months. The applicant was aware of the consequences of the out-sourcing decision and was given opportunities to make proposals regarding alternatives to retrenchment. The announcement by BSW on 14 August 1998 did not create a new commercial rationale requiring a fresh consultation process. The consultation process was adequate and achieved its substantive purpose. The applicant's mistaken belief that she would be offered a job with BSW did not render the retrenchment unfair. The respondent's actions were both procedurally...

Citation
[2000] ZALC 18
Parties
Applicant: W Visser; Respondent: Sanlam
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 March 2000
Case Number
C105/99
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed. The retrenchment was found to be procedurally and substantively fair.
Judges
Arendse
Legal Topics
Retrenchment, Section 189 Consultation, Operational Requirements Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness
Labour Law Retrenchment Section 189 Consultation Operational Requirements Dismissal Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W Visser

Applicant

Sanlam

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the applicant's retrenchment by the respondent procedurally and substantively fair under section 189 of the Labour Relations Act?
  2. 2 Did the respondent comply with its consultation obligations when the commercial rationale changed after BSW offered fewer positions than anticipated?
  3. 3 Was the applicant afforded a meaningful opportunity to make proposals regarding alternatives to retrenchment?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent had identified retrenchment as a possibility at an early stage and had engaged in a thorough consultation process spanning several months. The applicant was aware of the consequences of the out-sourcing decision and was given opportunities to make proposals regarding alternatives to retrenchment. The announcement by BSW on 14 August 1998 did not create a new commercial rationale requiring a fresh consultation process. The consultation process was adequate and achieved its substantive purpose. The applicant's mistaken belief that she would be offered a job with BSW did not render the retrenchment unfair. The respondent's actions were both procedurally...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. The retrenchment was found to be procedurally and substantively fair.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party is to pay its own costs.