South Africa Case Law

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others v Columbus Stainless (Pty) Ltd (JS529/14)

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others v Columbus Stainless (Pty) Ltd (JS529/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 344 (30 March 2016)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS529/14

Judge

Van Niekerk

The Labour Court dismissed a retrenchment referral, holding that the employer’s selection matrix was fair and objective, and that LIFO was not the only permissible criterion.

• Retrenchment Selection Criteria
• Fairness And Objectivity
• Collective Consultation
• Lifo Vs Matrix
• Section 189a Consultation
• Retrenchment-selection-criteria

National Union of Mineworkers and Others v Lonerock Construction (Pty) Ltd (JS 298/12)

National Union of Mineworkers and Others v Lonerock Construction (Pty) Ltd (JS 298/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 225 (29 July 2015)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS 298/12

Judge

Lagrange

The Labour Court found a genuine operational need for retrenchment, but held the employer failed to consult properly on selection and timing, awarding compensation.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Retrenchment
• Selection Criteria
• Procedural Fairness
• Compensation
• Collective Consultation

Cadema Industries (Pty) Ltd v De Kock NO and Others (C400/06)

Cadema Industries (Pty) Ltd v De Kock NO and Others (C400/06) [2007] ZALCCT 12 (15 February 2007)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C400/06

Judge

Pillay D

The Labour Court reviewed and set aside an arbitration award on short time, holding that the Main Agreement required only one day’s notice and that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction on one issue.

• Collective Consultation
• Short Time
• Main Agreement Interpretation
• Arbitration Review
• Labour-law
• Arbitration-review

De Laan v Van Dyck Carpeting Company (D893/00)

De Laan v Van Dyck Carpeting Company (D893/00) [2002] ZALC 69; [2003] 3 BLLR 257 (LC) (23 August 2002)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

D893/00

Judge

Maserumule

The court found that the referral of the dispute was late by over seven months and the explanation for the delay was inadequate, consisting of contradictory reasons and a lack of diligence by both the applicant and his attorney. The applicant failed to make any enquiries about his case for over twenty months, and his attorney did not provide an explanation for the delay. The court held that the consequences of the attorney's negligence should be borne by the applicant. On the merits, the court determined that the respondent was not obliged to consult individually with the applicant regarding…

Source excerpt

• Condonation For Late Referral
• Procedural Fairness
• Collective Consultation
• Retrenchment
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Costs Order