Yeko v Red Mining South Deep (Pty) Ltd (JS 633/18) [2022] ZAGPJHC 74 (25 March 2022)

Yeko v Red Mining South Deep (Pty) Ltd (JS 633/18) [2022] ZAGPJHC 74 (25 March 2022)

The applicant was employed on a fixed-term contract linked to the rail maintenance contract, which ended on 3 January 2017. The termination of the rail contract resulted in the automatic termination of the applicant's employment. However, the employer's actions in notifying the applicant of termination prior to the contract's end constituted a dismissal under section 186(1)(a) of the LRA. The employer justified the dismissal on operational requirements due to the loss of the rail contract. The evidence did not support the applicant's claim that vacancies existed which could have avoided his dismissal, nor that the selection criteria were unfairly applied. The selection criteria were...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 74
Parties
Applicant: Dumisani Yeko; Respondent: Red Mining South Deep (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 March 2022
Case Number
JS 633/18
Procedural Posture
Unfair Dismissal Application / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
The applicant's claim is dismissed. The dismissal is found to be substantively fair.
Judges
G N Moshoana
Legal Topics
Fixed Term Contracts, Operational Requirements Dismissal, Selection Criteria, Section 197 Transfer, Procedural Fairness Limitation
Labour Law Fixed Term Contracts Operational Requirements Dismissal Selection Criteria Section 197 Transfer Procedural Fairness Limitation

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dumisani Yeko

Applicant

Red Mining South Deep (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Dismissal Application / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the applicant's employment constituted a dismissal under the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal was substantively fair based on operational requirements.
  3. 3 Whether the selection criteria applied for retrenchment were fair and agreed upon.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was employed on a fixed-term contract linked to the rail maintenance contract, which ended on 3 January 2017. The termination of the rail contract resulted in the automatic termination of the applicant's employment. However, the employer's actions in notifying the applicant of termination prior to the contract's end constituted a dismissal under section 186(1)(a) of the LRA. The employer justified the dismissal on operational requirements due to the loss of the rail contract. The evidence did not support the applicant's claim that vacancies existed which could have avoided his dismissal, nor that the selection criteria were unfairly applied. The selection criteria were...

Court Disposition

The applicant's claim is dismissed. The dismissal is found to be substantively fair.

Orders

  • The dismissal of Yeko is substantively fair.
  • The claim of Yeko is dismissed.