South Africa Case Law

Communications Workers Union and Another v Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd (JS696/19)

Communications Workers Union and Another v Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd (JS696/19) [2024] ZALCJHB 169; (2024) 45 ILJ 1831 (LC) (24 April 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS696/19

Judge

M Makhura

The Labour Court dismissed an application to retrieve an archived file, finding a 27-month delay unjustified and noting jurisdictional problems with the unfair dismissal referral.

• Condonation
• Retrenchment
• Facilitation Process
• Jurisdiction
• Unfair Dismissal
• Archived-file-retrieval

NUMSA and Others v Industrial OLEO Chemical Products (D274/21)

NUMSA and Others v Industrial OLEO Chemical Products (D274/21) [2022] ZALCD 14 (6 May 2022)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D274/21

Judge

Hiralall

The court found that, in the context of a facilitated retrenchment under section 189A(7) of the Labour Relations Act, the legislature did not require a referral to conciliation before approaching the Labour Court. The references in section 189A(7)(b)(ii) and section 191(11) envisage prior involvement by a facilitator, and the Facilitation Regulations support direct referral to the Labour Court within 90 days of termination. The applicants provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, including union staff changes and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The prospects of success could not b…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Condonation
• Retrenchment
• Facilitation Process
• Jurisdiction
• Conciliation Requirement

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Scribante Africa Mining (Pty) Ltd and Another (J1982/19)

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Scribante Africa Mining (Pty) Ltd and Another (J1982/19) [2019] ZALCJHB 298 (5 November 2019)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J 1982/19

Judge

E Tlhotlhalemaje

The Labour Court dismissed NUMSA’s urgent section 189A(13) application, finding that Scribante had consulted in good faith and no fresh retrenchment notice was required.

• Retrenchment Procedure
• Section 189a Consultation
• Procedural Fairness
• Facilitation Process
• Urgent Application
• Retrenchment-procedure

Ketse v Telkom SA Soc Ltd and Others (P 400/14)

Ketse v Telkom SA Soc Ltd and Others (P 400/14) [2014] ZALCPE 38; [2015] 4 BLLR 436 (LC); (2015) 36 ILJ 1592 (LC) (5 December 2014)

Court

Labour Court Port Elizabeth

Case number

P 400/14

Judge

Lallie

The court held that the applicant was not a consulting party as envisaged in section 189(1) of the Labour Relations Act, as the employer was required to consult only with trade unions in terms of collective agreements. The applicant's participation in the retrenchment process was passive and did not amount to consultation. Consequently, he lacked locus standi to bring the application under section 189A(13). The court further found that the matter was not res judicata, as the parties and relief sought differed from the prior proceedings involving Solidarity. The facilitation process was lawful…

Source excerpt

• Retrenchment Procedure
• Collective Agreements
• Consultation Rights
• Locus Standi
• Facilitation Process