Retrenchment and the consulting process

[Aasvoël]

So our company recently retrenched some employees. From what I can find the company should consult with employees before retrenchment can happen, what the law doesn't seem to state clearly is it all employees or only those on the chopping block?

For instance say the employees had the same roles within the company, the company decides to retrench a subset of the employee pool, lets call this group A, group B is never informed of potential retrenchments. Is this legal, can a company only consult with group A and leave group B in the dark, or should group B form part of the consultation process? No one from group B was retrenched.

What legal recourse could group B have here?

 

[Tman*]

1st in, 1st out

 

[Aasvoël]

1st in, 1st out

The reasoning behind who gets retrenched was not explained, it also did not follow 1st in, 1st out

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

If group b was not affected, why do they care about taking legal action?

 

[B-1]

Why would group B seek legal recourse if they were not retrenched?

But usually the whole department would need to be consulted and its about a 3 month process. There are also specific requirements and they can't cherry pick who they like and don't like so on the face of it it sounds like due process wasn't followed.

 

[Aasvoël]

If group b was not affected, why do they care about taking legal action?

Why would group B seek legal recourse if they were not retrenched?

But usually the whole department would need to be consulted and its about a 3 month process. There are also specific requirements and they can't cherry pick who they like and don't like so on the face of it it sounds like due process wasn't followed.

Because some of use would like a payed vacation for a couple of months

I'm just generally interested in this, also the fact that working for a company that potentially does not follow the law to the letter might raise concerns for when your own head is on the block.

At the end of the day companies probably do get around this by paying for silence and so doing skirt legal issues. I don't know the details for those who got retrenchment packages therefore can't comment in this case, thus my asking whether it's legal to fire employees of group A while they have the same roles and work within the same teams as group B

 

[B-1]

Because some of use would like a payed vacation for a couple of months

I'm just generally interested in this, also the fact that working for a company that potentially does not follow the law to the letter might raise concerns for when your own head is on the block.

At the end of the day companies probably do get around this by paying for silence and so doing skirt legal issues. I don't know the details for those who got retrenchment packages therefore can't comment in this case, thus my asking whether it's legal to fire employees of group A while they have the same roles and work within the same teams as group B

A few things I can think of for this to be legal is if group A were all contractors and the contracts weren't renewed and paid in full.
Or group A were offered voluntary retrenchment and they all accepted and there was no need for going into the consultation process.
Or group A did some dodgy stuff and were not retrenched but fired.

 

[Aasvoël]

A few things I can think of for this to be legal is if group A were all contractors and the contracts weren't renewed and paid in full.
Or group A were offered voluntary retrenchment and they all accepted and there was no need for going into the consultation process.
Or group A did some dodgy stuff and were not retrenched but fired.

Voluntary retrenchment was probably the case here then. Everyone works on full time salaried contracts, not periodic contracts and wasn't dodgy stuff that got people fired. Full on retrenchment due to economic factors

 

[shaggy_beef_on_a_tricycle]

1st in, 1st out

No.

Last in, first out in that division.

Although I'm sure it is a bit more complex than that.

Sorry OP. Sucks.

 

[Aasvoël]

No.

Last in, first out in that division.

Although I'm sure it is a bit more complex than that.

Sorry OP. Sucks.

I suspect it was based on performance.

Thanks, really going to miss out on doing nothing

 

[Snyper564]

No.

Last in, first out in that division.

Although I'm sure it is a bit more complex than that.

Sorry OP. Sucks.

Why you apologising?

OP is annoyed that they are not getting retrenched...

 

[Kola-CT]

It is usually a very structured process and companies are generally careful making sure to follow it or risk substantial costs.

What is group B’s gripe, were some of them hoping for voluntary retrenchment packages?

We went through a section 189 in 2020 and the groups not affected, even in similar roles, were just bystanders as process was followed.

It sucks, but if done above board, so be it.

 

[Snyper564]

It is usually a very structured process and companies are generally careful making sure to follow it or risk substantial costs.

What is group B’s gripe, were some of them hoping for voluntary retrenchment packages?

We went through a section 189 in 2020 and the groups not affected, even in similar roles, were just bystanders as process was followed.

It sucks, but if done above board, so be it.

OP seems to be in group B and wanted the paid "holiday".

 

[Kola-CT]

OP seems to be in group B and wanted the paid "holiday".

Ah OK.

Should just be fired then, no retrenchment package option.

 

[Snyper564]

Ah OK.

Should just be fired then, no retrenchment package option.

Spot on, someone obviously thinks they are indispensable and highly "sought after"

This seems appropriate...

 

[B-1]

I suspect it was based on performance.

Thanks, really going to miss out on doing nothing

If you think getting a few extra weeks paid out and losing your job is going to be a holiday you are in for a surprise if it happens in future.

 

[TEXTILE GUY]

So, section 189 of the LRA deals with this.
Are you unionized?

The employer has to consult with the employees affected - and all steps to mitigate job losses need to be considered.
S189(7) deals with selection criteria and you can ask to be informed of this, such as how the company selected the staff.

Before diving off the deep end, one should also consider the financial implications of retrenchments. Sometimes, allowing longer serving members to go, results in expensive packages, which in turn allows or forces the employer to further retrench based on operational requirements related to affordability.

Skills retention is usually a big factor in the who goes and doesnt ........ but this must be discussed with the who goes crowd.

 

[Snyper564]

So, section 189 of the LRA deals with this.
Are you unionized?

The employer has to consult with the employees affected - and all steps to mitigate job losses need to be considered.
S189(7) deals with selection criteria and you can ask to be informed of this, such as how the company selected the staff.

Before diving off the deep end, one should also consider the financial implications of retrenchments. Sometimes, allowing longer serving members to go, results in expensive packages, which in turn allows or forces the employer to further retrench based on operational requirements related to affordability.

Skills retention is usually a big factor in the who goes and doesnt ........ but this must be discussed with the who goes crowd.

dont waste your time, OP is unhappy they not going

 

[TEXTILE GUY]

dont waste your time, OP is unhappy they not going

Dear Sir/Madam

I would like to tender my resignation ..............

 

[Aasvoël]

Ah OK.

Should just be fired then, no retrenchment package option.

Spot on, someone obviously thinks they are indispensable and highly "sought after"

This seems appropriate...

If you think getting a few extra weeks paid out and losing your job is going to be a holiday you are in for a surprise if it happens in future.

Dear Sir/Madam

I would like to tender my resignation ..............

Lighten up, its the internet!