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
Shange v Unico Tec (Pty) Ltd (D577/2021) [2024] ZALCD 14 (20 May 2024)
The Labour Court held that the applicants failed to prove duress when signing settlement agreements and dismissed their referral.
South African Clothing & Textile Workers Union (SACTWU) and Others v Nutrichem (Pty) Ltd (JS731/19) [2022] ZALCJHB 362 (30 November 2022)
Labour Court found Nutrichem’s dismissal of 18 SACTWU members automatically unfair and ordered retrospective reinstatement with 24 months’ backpay.
Phokane v Bokoni Platinum Mines and Others (J 3729/18) [2021] ZALCJHB 123 (19 June 2021)
Labour Court dismissed a declaratory application over retrenchment-related job appointments, holding the dispute belonged at the CCMA and was moot.
Tirelo Emergency Medical Services v Tlau and Another (JS1035/13) [2019] ZALCJHB 289 (25 October 2019)
The Labour Court rescinded a default judgment against the employer, finding a weak explanation for default but a prima facie bona fide defence and timely application.
Nape v INTCS Corporate Solutions (Pty) Ltd (JR 617/07) [2010] ZALC 33; (2010) 31 ILJ 2120 (LC) ; [2010] 8 BLLR 852 (LC) (10 March 2010)
The court found that the applicant's dismissal was substantively unfair but procedurally fair. The labour broker, as employer, failed to resist the client's unlawful demand for removal, which was not justified by the applicant's conduct. The contractual clause allowing arbitrary removal was against public policy and unenforceable as it undermined the applicant's right not to be unfairly dismissed. The respondent should have protected the applicant's rights and sought recourse against the client. Although the applicant suffered no financial loss, nominal compensation was warranted to vindicate…
Source excerpt
Chemical Workers Industrial Union v Polifin Limited (J2525/98) [2000] ZALC 139; (2001) 22 ILJ 682 (LC) (30 November 2000)
The court found that the five individual applicants were not included in the dispute referred to the CCMA for conciliation on 21 June 1997. The referral and subsequent conciliation process related exclusively to the PVC Division, and there was no objective indication that the Polyethylene Division or the five applicants were part of the dispute. The union organiser's subjective intention and testimony were insufficient to establish that the applicants' retrenchment was encompassed by the referral. The Labour Relations Act requires that a dismissal dispute be referred for conciliation as a jur…
Source excerpt
Explore more
