SUMMARY In this case Potgieter (the “Applicant”) approached the Labour Court (“Court”) on an urgent basis for an order interdicting the Respondents from proceeding with disciplinary action against him, alternatively an order that the disciplinary proceedings against him be dealt with in terms of section 188(A) of the Labour Relations Act (“LRA”) The application related
BACKGROUND Pick ‘n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd (“PNP”) operates in-store bakeries to produce baked goods at certain of their stores. As part of an empowerment initiative, PNP decided to use these bakeries to train previously disadvantaged persons to operate self-standing bakeries, capable of operating independently of PNP. PNP contracted with Assist Bakery 115 CC (“AB”),
BACKGROUND The Respondent had been employed by AFGEN (Pty) Ltd (“the Appellant”) for just over a year, during which period she suffered from depression and was placed on sick leave for two months. Subsequent to the Respondent’s return, in December 2011, she was charged with misconduct for: (i) sending unauthorized emails to customers and (ii)
SUMMARY Richard Mvubu, the Applicant (“Employee”), was permanently employed by Pharmaceutical Contractor (Pty) Ltd, the Respondent (“Employer”). The Employee was employed to work the night shift in the manufacturing and granualtion unit of the Employer. Following an attempted armed robbery with a demand for ransom at the Employer’s premises, the Employer initiated retrenchment proceedings in
BACKGROUND In 2014, Aveng Trident Steel (“Aveng”) initiated a consultation process in terms of section 189 of the Labour Relations Act (“the LRA”) with the union NUMSA. Aveng recognised that a reduction of staff would not be sufficient to resolve its operational problems. It needed to achieve an improvement in productivity as well by, inter
SUMMARY Marais and 56 Others (“Applicants”) were the employees of Shiva Uranium (Pty) Ltd (“First Respondent”) and brought an urgent application in the Labour Court seeking leave to institute legal proceedings against the First Respondent, the employer, which was placed in business rescue on 19 February 2018, in terms of section 113 (1)(b) of the
SUMMARY The factual context from which this judgment arises concerns the substantive fairness of a retrenchment dispute. In this action, Mark Anthony Sampson (“the Employee”) challenged the substantive fairness of his dismissal, asserting that it was not effected in accordance with section 189 of the LRA.     Truvelo Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd (the “Employer”) commenced
SUMMARY The Applicant (the “Employee”) was employed as a Project Manager by the Second Respondent (the “Employer”). The Employee brought an application to the Labour Court on the basis of unfair retrenchment on both procedural and substantive grounds. Within 6 (Six) months of commencing employment, the Employer noticed that the Employee lacked a critical and
BACKGROUND Allan Long (“the Applicant”) was previously employed by South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd (“the First Respondent”) as its district manager for the Border District. He was responsible for legal compliance in respect of the First Respondent’s operations in the Border District, including the requirements pertaining to a fleet of vehicles. On 10 May 2013,
SUMMARY The factual context from which this judgment arises concerns the procedural fairness of a retrenchment dispute. The matter pivoted on the applicability of S189A of the Labour Relations Act No. 66 of 1995 (“LRA”), Mr. Wessel Enslin (“the Employee”) disputed the provisions applicability, whereas Lonmin Platinum Comprising Western Platinum Limited (“the Employer”) contended the