Yose and Others v Killin Services CC Trading as GSM Services Group (P79/97) [1998] ZALC 28 (12 June 1998)

Yose and Others v Killin Services CC Trading as GSM Services Group (P79/97) [1998] ZALC 28 (12 June 1998)

The court found that the applicants were dismissed on 29 May 1997 by Bennett, acting on instructions from Mr Martins on behalf of the respondent. There was no compliance with section 189 of the Labour Relations Act, as no consultations were held with the applicants prior to their retrenchment. The respondent's defence that the applicants absconded was rejected, as the evidence showed they were informed of their retrenchment and did not leave voluntarily. The respondent's conduct, including its failure to take corrective action or discipline Bennett, indicated acceptance of the dismissals. The applicants were not paid severance pay or their final wages, which was in breach of section...

Citation
[1998] ZALC 28
Parties
Applicant: C M Yose & 12 Others; Respondent: Killin Services CC Trading as GSM Services Group
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 June 1998
Case Number
P79/97
Procedural Posture
Labour Court Application / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
The dismissal of the applicants was procedurally unfair and not in compliance with section 189 of the Labour Relations Act. The applicants are entitled to severance pay and compensation.
Judges
Mlambo
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Retrenchment, Procedural Fairness, Severance Pay, Compensation, Section 189 Consultation
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Retrenchment Procedural Fairness Severance Pay Compensation Section 189 Consultation

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C M Yose & 12 Others

Applicant

Killin Services CC Trading as GSM Services Group

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Court Application / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were dismissed or absconded from employment.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the applicants was procedurally fair in terms of section 189 of the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to severance pay and compensation for unfair dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were dismissed on 29 May 1997 by Bennett, acting on instructions from Mr Martins on behalf of the respondent. There was no compliance with section 189 of the Labour Relations Act, as no consultations were held with the applicants prior to their retrenchment. The respondent's defence that the applicants absconded was rejected, as the evidence showed they were informed of their retrenchment and did not leave voluntarily. The respondent's conduct, including its failure to take corrective action or discipline Bennett, indicated acceptance of the dismissals. The applicants were not paid severance pay or their final wages, which was in breach of section...

Court Disposition

The dismissal of the applicants was procedurally unfair and not in compliance with section 189 of the Labour Relations Act. The applicants are entitled to severance pay and compensation.

Orders

  • The dismissal of the applicants on 29 May 1997 was procedurally unfair and not in compliance with section 189 of the Act.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay severance pay to the applicants: one week to all applicants except applicant no 3, and three weeks to the third applicant.