Mathews v Glaxosmithkline SA (Pty) Limited (JS239/04)
Mathews v Glaxosmithkline SA (Pty) Limited (JS239/04) [2006] ZALC 35; [2007] 3 BLLR 230 (LC); (2006) 27 ILJ 1876 (LC) (10 February 2006)
The Court found that the Applicant failed to prove that the Respondent's conduct amounted to an unfair labour practice or an unfair dismissal under Chapter VIII of the Labour Relations Act. The differentiation in retrenchment benefits was adequately explained: errors in payment for Messrs Brink and Bagg, and a unique negotiated settlement with Dr Moore, whose termination was not a retrenchment but an agreed separation due to his strong bargaining position. The Court held that, unless improper or unfair differentiation is proven without objective justification, there is no breach of the LRA or…
Source excerpt
- Unfair Labour Practice
- Retrenchment
- Differentiation In Benefits
- Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
- Constitutional Right To Fair Labour Practices