Woolworths (Pty) Ltd v SACCAWU and Others (JA56/2016) [2017] ZALAC 54; [2017] 12 BLLR 1217 (LAC); (2018) 39 ILJ 222 (LAC) (19 September 2017)

Woolworths (Pty) Ltd v SACCAWU and Others (JA56/2016) [2017] ZALAC 54; [2017] 12 BLLR 1217 (LAC); (2018) 39 ILJ 222 (LAC) (19 September 2017)

The Labour Appeal Court held that Woolworths failed to prove that it properly considered alternatives to dismissal, particularly the union's final proposal and other reasonable options such as natural attrition and wage freezes. The consultation process was found to be flawed, but the main finding was that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] ZALAC 54
Parties
Appellant: Woolworths (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: SACCAWU; Respondent: C Moeng and Others
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 September 2017
Case Number
JA56/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment on Procedural and Substantive Fairness of Retrenchment
Outcome
Appeal upheld in part and dismissed in part. Application for procedural unfairness dismissed. Dismissal of employees found substantively unfair. Compensation awarded.
Judges
Tlaletsi, Landman, Phatshoane
Legal Topics
Retrenchment, Operational Requirements, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Compensation, Consultation Process
Labour Law Civil Procedure Retrenchment Operational Requirements Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Compensation Consultation Process

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Woolworths (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

SACCAWU

Respondent

C Moeng and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment on Procedural and Substantive Fairness of Retrenchment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the affected employees was for a fair reason or operationally justifiable on rational grounds.
  2. 2 Whether Woolworths properly considered alternatives to dismissal before retrenching the employees.
  3. 3 Whether the consultation process with SACCAWU was meaningful and procedurally fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court held that Woolworths failed to prove that it properly considered alternatives to dismissal, particularly the union's final proposal and other reasonable options such as natural attrition and wage freezes. The consultation process was found to be flawed, but the main finding was that the dismissals were substantively unfair because the employer did not comply with section 189A(19)(c) of the LRA. The posts were redundant, making reinstatement impractical; therefore, compensation equal to 12 months' remuneration for each affected employee was ordered. The appeal was upheld in part and dismissed in part, with the application for procedural unfairness dismissed and...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in part and dismissed in part. Application for procedural unfairness dismissed. Dismissal of employees found substantively unfair. Compensation awarded.

Orders

  • The application seeking relief in respect of the alleged unfair procedure is dismissed.
  • The dismissal of the second and further applicants is found to be substantively unfair.