Concourt sets aside compensation order

[LazyLion]

The Constitutional Court on Tuesday overturned a Labour Court ruling granting over R1 million to each of a number of workers dismissed from an electrical company.

F&J Electrical CC (F&J) had approached the Constitutional Court seeking a rescission of the Labour Court's order.

The Labour Court ruling had been based on affidavits saying the workers were retrenched after being deprived of their right to join a union of their choice.

In F&J's absence, the Labour Court awarded each of the affected former staff 24 months' remuneration. Due to the union allegations, a far greater award was made against the company, resulting in an order for over R1m in compensation per employee.

F&J unsuccessfully applied for leave to appeal to both the Labour Court and the Labour Appeal Court.

In a unanimous judgment on Tuesday, Constitutional Court Judge Ray Zondo granted F&J leave to appeal and upheld the appeal.

In terms of the Labour Relations Act the employer was not required to show sufficient cause for failure to respond to a statement of claim. Rather, the employer only needed to indicate that the previous court order was erroneously sought or granted.

The Constitutional Court held that the Labour Court made errors in its initial order, including that it based its order on the former workers' affidavits, which were not served on F&J.

The evidence of the affidavits was also contrary to their assertions in a prior Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) arbitration that they did not know the reason for their dismissals.

At the CCMA, F&J showed that the employees had been dismissed due to operational requirements.

Zondo pointed out that in the Labour Court F&J was unknowingly faced with the possibility, in terms of the Labour Relations Act, that it would have to pay double the usual amount of compensation if dismissal was found to be due to union membership.

The Constitutional Court also found that the Metal and Electrical Workers Union, which represented the former workers throughout, did not take the complaint to the Labour Court within the prescribed 90 days from the completion of the CCMA process.

As such, the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the dismissal dispute and make the compensation order.

The Constitutional Court ordered the matter back to the Labour Court where F&J will be offered a chance to defend the dismissals.


Source : Sapa /mjs/fg/ks/jk
Date : 17 Feb 2015 13:04

 

[Seriously]

A million rand per employee? This country and it's legislators are totally nuts! Bonkers and clowns.

All these get rich quick schemes!

 

[rza]

A million rand per employee? This country and it's legislators are totally nuts! Bonkers and clowns.

All these get rich quick schemes!

That's a month's salary X 24 months, so that's reasonable if you earn R500k a year. Unfair discrimination is a serious issue in this country and I don't think we have reason to question that considering our history of discrimination. If it's found that the discrimination was really union related then I'm afraid the company can't run away from the R1m per employee.

 

[The_Assimilator]

... the Labour Court made errors in its initial order, including that it based its order on the former workers' affidavits, which were not served on F&J.

The evidence of the affidavits was also contrary to their assertions in a prior Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) arbitration that they did not know the reason for their dismissals.

...

... the Metal and Electrical Workers Union, which represented the former workers throughout, did not take the complaint to the Labour Court within the prescribed 90 days from the completion of the CCMA process.

As such, the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the dismissal dispute and make the compensation order.

Whoever presided over this case in the Labour Court should be arrested and charged with gross negligence. It would also be interesting to know if that person(s) had arranged to get a cut of the workers' "compensation".

 

[rza]

Whoever presided over this case in the Labour Court should be arrested and charged with gross negligence. It would also be interesting to know if that person(s) had arranged to get a cut of the workers' "compensation".

Why?

 

[The_Assimilator]

That's a month's salary X 24 months, so that's reasonable if you earn R500k a year. Unfair discrimination is a serious issue in this country and I don't think we have reason to question that considering our history of discrimination. If it's found that the discrimination was really union related then I'm afraid the company can't run away from the R1m per employee.

No. Learn to read:

... the Labour Court awarded each of the affected former staff 24 months' remuneration. Due to the union allegations, a far greater award was made against the company, resulting in an order for over R1m in compensation per employee.

 

[The_Assimilator]

Why?

Again, learn to read:

... the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the dismissal dispute and make the compensation order.

In other words, the judgement was illegal. Those responsible for issuing that judgement either didn't bother learnign the facts of the case, or didn't care. At the very least that's negligence.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Again, learn to read:



In other words, the judgement was illegal. Those responsible for issuing that judgement either didn't bother learnign the facts of the case, or didn't care. At the very least that's negligence.

Don't try explain basic legal concepts to rza, they're a bit beyond him.

 

[Paul Hjul]

Don't try explain basic legal concepts to rza, they're a bit beyond him.

broken clocks get it right twice a day
nothing in the judgment indicates that the court was negligent or committed any form of judicial malfeasance
this is simply a situation of non-jurisdiction to entertain at inception which arises from time to time

the actual interesting thing in this judgment is the effect of the purported constitutional amendment proscribing appeals to the SCA

Anyway the article really doesn't do the facts justice and this thread really is showing a big pile of FUD:
http://saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2015/3.html

 

[rza]

No. Learn to read:

It is law to award a maximum of 24 X month's salary for cases of unfair discrimination, so the Labour Courts judges applied the law as it is. Since the employer didn't respond to the case then the judges had no choice but to award the maxumum compensation. Read EE Act and LRA.

 

[Seriously]

It is law to award a maximum of 24 X month's salary for cases of unfair discrimination, so the Labour Courts judges applied the law as it is. Since the employer didn't respond to the case then the judges had no choice but to award the maxumum compensation. Read EE Act and LRA.

An eElectrician" earns R41000.00 a eMonth? LOL! That is assuming they were qualified artisans. Catch a wake up.

 

[itareanlnotani]

It is law to award a maximum of 24 X month's salary for cases of unfair discrimination, so the Labour Courts judges applied the law as it is. Since the employer didn't respond to the case then the judges had no choice but to award the
maxumum compensation. Read EE Act and LRA.

#32 on the court case proceedings -

It is also significant to note how the union and employees secured from the Labour Court double the compensation they may otherwise have been awarded. In the CCMA the employees’ case was that they were dismissed for a reason that they did not know. The applicant informed them that they were dismissed for its operational requirements. The commissioner accepted the applicant’s version. Very remarkably, in their statement of claim in the Labour Court the employees repeated their claim that they were dismissed for a reason they did not know. Yet, they suddenly acquired knowledge of the reason for their dismissal. Very conveniently, the employees averred that the reason for their dismissal was their union membership. They would have us believe that this suddenly-acquired knowledge had nothing to do with their knowledge that the applicant would not be at the default judgment hearing to dispute this story and that it had nothing to do with a desire to get double the maximum compensation that they could have been awarded if they stuck to the version set out in their statement of claim. That is difficult to believe.

 

[rza]

#32 on the court case proceedings -

It is also significant to note how the union and employees secured from the Labour Court double the compensation they may otherwise have been awarded. In the CCMA the employees’ case was that they were dismissed for a reason that they did not know. The applicant informed them that they were dismissed for its operational requirements. The commissioner accepted the applicant’s version. Very remarkably, in their statement of claim in the Labour Court the employees repeated their claim that they were dismissed for a reason they did not know. Yet, they suddenly acquired knowledge of the reason for their dismissal. Very conveniently, the employees averred that the reason for their dismissal was their union membership. They would have us believe that this suddenly-acquired knowledge had nothing to do with their knowledge that the applicant would not be at the default judgment hearing to dispute this story and that it had nothing to do with a desire to get double the maximum compensation that they could have been awarded if they stuck to the version set out in their statement of claim. That is difficult to believe.

The matter has been taken back to the Labour Court and the employees can still claim that they were dismissed for union membership, and if they can prove that then they will still get 24 X month's salary compensation. There is nothing sinister about this, it happens every time at the Labour Courts. 24 X month's salary compensation is prescribed in the act for unfair discrimination cases, so there's nothing sinister about this.

 

[sobs74]

A lot of people are rotting in jail for wrongful arrest or convictions. The justice system is sooooo...