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
Engelbrecht v Bachique 705 (Pty) Ltd t/a The New House of Busby (J 606/20) [2020] ZALCJHB 252 (3 August 2020)
Urgent retrenchment procedure case under section 189A(13) of the LRA. The court found the reinstatement offer was not bona fide and awarded compensation.
Engelbrecht v Bachique 705 (Pty) Ltd t/a The New House of Busby (J 606/20) [2020] ZALCJHB 125; (2020) 41 ILJ 2641 (LC) (31 July 2020)
The court found that the respondent failed to follow a fair procedure in retrenching the applicant, as required by section 189A of the LRA. The respondent's offer of reinstatement was not bona fide, lacking specificity regarding the applicant's future role after the closure of the Germiston Distribution Centre and the relocation of operations to George. The applicant's rejection of the reinstatement offer was reasonable under the circumstances. As the primary remedies under section 189A(13)(a)-(c) were inappropriate, the court held that compensation under section 189A(13)(d) was justified. Th…
Source excerpt
MDS International Skills (Pty) Ltd v Commission For Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR2187/11) [2013] ZALCJHB 313 (21 November 2013)
The court found that the commissioner’s conclusion that the third to seventeenth respondents were dismissed by the applicant was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The applicant did not take steps to prevent their removal from the site or eviction from accommodation, and the only reasonable inference was that the applicant acquiesced in the dismissal. However, the court held that the commissioner’s award of compensation was not reasonable in light of the applicant’s bona fide offer of reinstatement, which was unreasonably refused by the respondents. The commissioner failed to provide r…
Source excerpt
Big Five Recruitment v Shear and Another (J668/00) [2001] ZALC 94 (28 June 2001)
Labour Court review of a CCMA arbitration award on unfair dismissal compensation and refusal of reinstatement. The award was set aside after a genuine reinstatement offer was refused.
Herbst and Others v Fidelity Guards (J164/99) [2001] ZALC 84; (2001) 22 ILJ 1828 (LC) (7 June 2001)
The Labour Court held that the retrenchment notice terminated employment, the employer could not unilaterally revoke it, and the employees were entitled to severance pay.
Basson v Cecil Nurse (Pty) Limited (J1648/99) [2000] ZALC 138; [2001] 3 BLLR 321 (LC); (2001) 22 ILJ 673 (LC) (29 November 2000)
The court found that the respondent's offer of reinstatement was bona fide and primarily aimed at remedying procedural defects in the dismissal. The applicant's refusal of reinstatement was not based on a factual foundation that would justify compensation for procedural unfairness. Awarding compensation for procedural unfairness in these circumstances would reward obstinacy and undermine bona fide settlement efforts, contrary to the values of the Labour Relations Act. However, the dismissal was substantively unfair, and the applicant was entitled to compensation for this. The quantum was set…
Source excerpt
Van Niekerk v Cheque Guarantee Services (Pty) Ltd (J3066/98) [2000] ZALC 95; (2001) 22 ILJ 728 (LC) (15 September 2000)
The court found that the dismissal of the applicant was procedurally unfair, as conceded by the respondent. However, the respondent made a genuine and unconditional offer of reinstatement to redress the procedural defect. The applicant's reasons for rejecting the offer—alternative employment, duplication of positions, fear of victimisation, breakdown of trust, and risk of retrenchment—were either unsupported by evidence or not valid grounds for refusal. The applicant's rejection of the offer frustrated the respondent's bona fide attempt to remedy the procedural unfairness. Accordingly, in ter…
Source excerpt
Mkhonto v Ford NO and Others (JA61/99) [2000] ZALAC 12 (30 March 2000)
The Labour Appeal Court found that the appellant was offered unconditional reinstatement prior to the effective date of her dismissal, and that her refusal to accept or even consider the offer was grossly unreasonable. The commissioner failed to consider this material evidence, resulting in a misdirection. The court held that fairness did not require compensation to be paid to an employee who ignored a genuine offer of reinstatement. The order referring the dispute back to the CCMA was overturned, and the costs of the appeal and application for leave to appeal were awarded against the appella…
Source excerpt
Explore more
