Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Ngobeni and Others vs Interspray Durban CC (JS739-18) [2024] ZALCJHB 80 (21 February 2024)
The Labour Court held that 33 applicants were properly before it and that their dismissals for participating in an unprotected strike were substantively and procedurally fair.
October and 15 Others v Theunissen Technical Services and Another (C155/2019) [2022] ZALCCT 40; (2022) 43 ILJ 2573 (LC) (27 July 2022)
The court found that the applicants were permanent employees of the respondents, not contractors, based on the evidence of continuous employment, regular payment, and lack of written contracts. The respondents' version that the applicants were casual workers was rejected as unsupported by documentary evidence and contradicted by admissions under cross-examination. The termination of employment on 14 January 2019, when the respondents stated there was no work and could not guarantee future remuneration, constituted a dismissal under section 186 of the LRA. The respondents failed to plead or pr…
Source excerpt
Food and Allied Workers Union and Others v Earlybird Farm and Another (JS1076/2013) [2019] ZALCJHB 1 (9 January 2019)
The Labour Court found dismissals for participation in an unprotected strike procedurally and substantively unfair, but declined reinstatement and ordered four months' compensation.
Sithole v Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining and Others (JR318/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 434; (2018) 39 ILJ 472 (LC) (24 November 2017)
The court found that the arbitrator misconceived the true nature of the enquiry by focusing solely on the applicant's lack of a work permit and failing to consider the relevant facts, including the applicant's five years of employment and the circumstances surrounding his dismissal. The breach of section 38(1) of the Immigration Act does not shield employers from the consequences of unfair dismissal, and the applicant was entitled to protection under the LRA. The dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair. Given the applicant's preference not to be reinstated and his subsequent…
Source excerpt
Pharmaco Distribution (Pty) Ltd v W (JA104/2015) [2017] ZALAC 48; (2017) 38 ILJ 2496 (LAC) (4 July 2017)
The court held that clause 17.3 of the respondent's contract of employment, which allowed the employer to require medical and psychological testing at its discretion, was unlawful and unenforceable under section 7(1) of the Employment Equity Act, as consent is not a valid justification for such testing. The evidence showed that the respondent's bipolar disorder was well managed and did not affect her work performance, and that she was singled out for psychiatric assessment solely because of her disability. The employer's actions amounted to unfair discrimination and an automatically unfair di…
Source excerpt
Masemola v CGM Restaurant C (JS 431/12) [2013] ZALCJHB 68 (2 May 2013)
Default judgment was granted in an unfair dismissal claim arising from retrenchment. The Labour Court found the dismissal procedurally and substantively unfair.
Burger v Aether Energy CC (J2536/09) [2010] ZALCJHB 342 (1 October 2010)
The Labour Court held that Burger’s dismissal was automatically unfair because it arose from a business transfer under section 197 of the LRA and awarded 16 months’ remuneration.
National Union of Mineworkers v Black Mountain Mineral Development Company (Pty) Ltd. (705/94) [1997] ZASCA 21; 1997 (4) SA 51 (SCA); [1997] 2 All SA 595 (A); [1997] 4 BLLR 355 (A); (1997) 18 ILJ 439 (SCA) (25 March 1997)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that dismissals of lawful strikers at a mine were not an unfair labour practice. The ultimatum, dismissal, and refusal to backdate wages were found fair.
Explore more
