South Africa Case Law

Rachoene and Others v G4S Secure Solutions (Pty) Ltd (J3933/18)

Rachoene and Others v G4S Secure Solutions (Pty) Ltd (J3933/18) [2024] ZALCJHB 136 (18 March 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J3933/18

Judge

S Snyman

The court found that the applicants' dismissal was substantively fair. The respondent lost a major contract, resulting in the redundancy of the applicants' positions. The respondent complied with section 189A of the LRA, offering alternative positions to all affected employees and communicating these opportunities through written notices and consultations. The applicants either failed or refused to apply for these positions, despite being qualified and able to avoid retrenchment. Their reasons for not applying were found to be unjustified and lacking credibility. The court held that the appli…

Source excerpt

• Retrenchment
• Operational Requirements
• Section 189a Lra
• Alternative Positions
• Procedural Fairness
• Substantive Fairness

SACCAWU and Others v Connect Financial Services (Pty) Ltd (JS 121 / 2021)

SACCAWU and Others v Connect Financial Services (Pty) Ltd (JS 121 / 2021) [2023] ZALCJHB 32 (9 March 2023)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS 121 / 2021

Judge

Mthalane

The Labour Court held that the retrenchments were procedurally and substantively fair after finding that early retirement, vacancies, and workload diversion were properly dealt with.

• Retrenchment
• Operational Requirements
• Selection Criteria
• Early Retirement
• Alternative Positions
• Substantive Fairness

Van Vuuren and Others v Modelez South Africa (Pty) Ltd (PS22/17)

Van Vuuren and Others v Modelez South Africa (Pty) Ltd (PS22/17) [2018] ZALCPE 40; [2019] 3 BLLR 302 (LC); (2019) 40 ILJ 1106 (LC) (7 November 2018)

Court

Labour Court Port Elizabeth

Case number

PS22/17

Judge

S Snyman

The court found that the retrenchment of the applicants was substantively fair. The respondent had a legitimate operational requirement to outsource its accounts receivable functions, and the consultation process was properly conducted under section 189A of the LRA, with consensus reached on all material issues, including termination dates. The extended termination dates were conditional on the applicants performing handover duties, which they failed or refused to do. The respondent was justified in terminating their employment earlier and engaging temporary employees solely to complete the h…

Source excerpt

• Operational Requirements Dismissal
• Section 189 Consultation
• Alternative Positions
• Substantive Fairness
• Severance Pay
• Temporary Employment

Engelbrecht v Fraser Alexander (Pty) Ltd (JS518/2014)

Engelbrecht v Fraser Alexander (Pty) Ltd (JS518/2014) [2016] ZALCJHB 47 (10 February 2016)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS518/2014

Judge

AC Basson

The Labour Court held that the retrenchment was substantively and procedurally fair, but awarded three months’ compensation for procedural unfairness in one appointment process.

• Unfair Retrenchment
• Section 189 Consultation
• Bumping
• Alternative Positions
• Compensation For Procedural Unfairness
• Unfair-retrenchment

Ledwaba v BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd (JS955/2011, JS54/2011)

Ledwaba v BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd (JS955/2011, JS54/2011) [2015] ZALCJHB 255 (12 August 2015)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS955/2011, JS54/2011

Judge

O Mooki

Labour Court held that a retrenched HR manager’s dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair after a restructuring, biased selection process, and failure to offer a vacant alternative role.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Selection Criteria
• Retrenchment
• Alternative Positions
• Procedural Fairness
• Compensation

Cloete v R P Logistics (C 439/2013)

Cloete v R P Logistics (C 439/2013) [2014] ZALCCT 51 (21 October 2014)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C 439/2013

Judge

A J Steenkamp

The Labour Court held that Cloete’s retrenchment by R P Logistics was for valid operational requirements and was procedurally fair.

• Dismissal For Operational Requirements
• Fair Procedure
• Selection Criteria
• Alternative Positions
• Condonation
• Consultation Process

GIWUSA obo Qenebe and Others v NAMPAK Wiegand Glass (Pty) Ltd (JS398/10)

GIWUSA obo Qenebe and Others v NAMPAK Wiegand Glass (Pty) Ltd (JS398/10) [2013] ZALCJHB 128 (3 June 2013)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS398/10

Judge

A C Basson

The Labour Court held that the retrenchments were substantively fair because the employer offered alternatives and the union refused them unless salaries stayed the same.

• Retrenchment
• Operational Requirements
• Consultation Process
• Selection Criteria
• Alternative Positions
• Operational-requirements