About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Labour Appeal Court
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Labour Appeal Court
>>
2014
>>
[2014] ZALAC 84
|
|
Eskom Holdings Limited v Solidarity and Others (CA19/11) [2014] ZALAC 84 (10 December 2014)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
IN
THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN
Case
no: CA19/11
DATE:
10 DECEMBER 2014
Reportable
In the matter
between:
ESKOM HOLDINGS
LIMITED
.............................................................................................
Appellant
And
SOLIDARITY
...............................................................................................................
First
Respondent
R.N HUTCHINGS AND
OTHERS
.........................................................................
Second
Respondent
Heard: 07
November 2013
Delivered: 10
December 2014
Summary:
Implementation of an early retirement scheme in terms of a management
directive - Respondents contending management directive
a product of
an agreement concluded between parties in a meeting - employer
contending that no contract concluded at the meeting.
Respondents
further averring management directive proof of contract and signed by
representative of the appellant. Appellant denying
signatory had
authority as early retirement had to go through proper internal
process before it is capable of being implemented.
Respondents
raising issue of ostensible authority and Turquand Rule. Labour Court
upholding union’s contention and ordering
implementation of
managment directive. Appeal - evidence showing that proposals made at
the meeting and further discussion and
consultations with relevant
stake holders still had to take place. No contract concluded- union
knowing that early retirement scheme
an interest dispute which needed
to go through internal processes before implementation- no
application of the Turquand Rule- Labour
Court’s judgment set
aside- appeal upheld with costs
Coram: Waglay JP,
Musi and Dlodlo AJJA
JUDGMENT
WAGLAY JP
[1]
Eskom, the appellant, appeals against the
order of the Labour Court (Steenkamp J) requiring it to comply with
Management Directive
MD102 (“REV 2”) (hereafter “MD102”).
The said directive gives licensed operators in the employ of the
appellant
at its Koeberg Nuclear Power Station an automatic right to
early retirement without loss of pension benefits. The order of the
Labour Court requires that the Directive be implemented from 1998 and
that Koeberg Nuclear Power Station makes good the costs of
implementing the early retirement entitlement by making the requisite
contribution to the Pension Fund of the licensed operators.
[2]
According to the Trade Union Solidarity
(the first respondent), an “in principle agreement” was
concluded on
10 July 1998
when the appellant made the proposal that licensed operators be
allowed to retire without loss of pension benefits after completing
a
period of retirement service which was about 50 per cent less than
the retirement service they were ordinarily required to perform.
The
“in principle agreement”, respondents claim was
ultimately finalised and concluded on 2 November 1998 by the adoption
of MD102 which was duly signed on behalf of and on the authority of
Peter Prozesky, the manager of the Koeberg Nuclear Power Station
(Koeberg) who was authorised to sign on behalf of the appellant.
[3]
The appellant on the other hand denied that
any agreement was concluded on 10 July 1998 or on any other date and
also denied that
either Prozesky or Crookes who respondents claimed
represented the appellant had any authority to conclude an agreement
relating
to pension benefits of the appellant’s staff; that, in
any event, the early retirement scheme was erroneously incorporated
in MD102. Consequently, and this is common cause, the appellant
withdrew the scheme on 14 January 1999.
[4]
Before dealing with the evidence, it is
instructive to record the relevant clauses of the respondents’
statement of claim
and what was recorded in the pre-trial minute.
[5]
Clauses 5 to 8 of the respondents’
Statement of Case contain the following allegation:
‘
5
5.1 On or about 10 July 1998 and at Koeberg, First Applicant (acting
in its own name and on behalf of all its members who were
licensed
operators) entered into an oral agreement with Eskom…
5.2
It was an express
alternatively
an implied
alternatively
a tacit and material term of the above oral agreement that:-
5.2.1
Eskom would pay to licensed operators a yearly once-off
non-pensionable payment equal to double his/her basic monthly salary.
The payment would take place annually on successful completion of the
annual license re-qualification examination.
5.2.2
A system of early retirement would be applied to licensed operators
whereby:
5.2.2.1
Individual licensed operators would – subject to service –
qualify for early retirement;
5.2.2.2
for the purposes of early retirement, a licensed operator would be
credited with condoned service of 6 months service for
each year
served as a licensed operator, or pro rata for part thereof in
addition to the 12 months ordinarily credited.
5.2.2.3
The practical implementation of the aforegoing would be referred to a
task team for implementation at the earliest possible
opportunity.
6.
Pursuant to the said agreement,
6.1
Eskom paid licensed operators their yearly once-off non-pensionable
payment equal to double his/her monthly basic salary with
effect from
1998, and continue to do so to date hereof;
6.2`
With regard to early retirement, a task team was brought into
existence comprising Mr. Derrick Douglas and Mr Raymond Wilczewski
(acting on behalf of First Applicant) and Mr Peter Prozesky, Ms
Nerina Boshoff, Mr Juri Hanekom and Mr Brian Dowds (on behalf of
Eskom).
7.
In or about November 1998, the task team aforesaid reached consensus
as to the implementation of the agreement referred to in
paragraph
5.2.2 above.
8.
Eskom duly implemented that consensus by:
8.1
Reducing same to writing in a document known as “Management
Directive 102 Revision 2”, which document was:
8.1.1
Complied by Mr. J.E. Hanekom, Eskom’s training manager, and
signed by him (duly authorised in this capacity) on 2 November
1998;
8.1.2
Reviewed by Mr. B. Dowds, the production manager, and signed by him
(duly authorised in this capacity) on 2 November 1998;
8.1.3
Duly authorised by Mr. Peter Prozesky, the power station manager at
Koeberg who was duly authorised in this capacity, and
signed by Mr AC
Van Schalkwyk, the acting power station manager at Koeberg (duly
authorised in this capacity) on 2 November 1998.’
A
copy of the said document is annexed hereto marked “A”;
8.2
Duly implemented as a directive of the management of Koeberg in
accordance with Eskom’s standard policy with effect from
2
November 1998.’
[6]
The pre-trial minute was only helpful
insofar as it stated that the licensed operators who totalled 34 were
the number of licensed
operators employed by the appellant and they
were all members of the first respondent.
[7]
Annexure ‘A’, the MD102
document attached to the Statement of Case is headed “
Remuneration
Model for Employees who held SRO/RO/NEC Licences and Certificates”
and records as its purpose “
Description
of remuneration for holders of SRO/RO and NEC qualifications at
Koeberg Nuclear Power Station”
and as to its scope it states “
the
organizational posts for which the directive is applicable will be
authorised by the Power Station Manager. This list is to
be kept
current and subject to an annual review by the Power Station
Manager”.
MD102 deals with (i)
the Reward and Recognition Scheme for Operators; (ii) Reward for
Operating Training Group Employees and (iii)
the Early Retirement
Scheme for Licensed Operators.
[8]
There is no dispute about that part of
MD102 which deals with Reward and Recognition Scheme or the Reward
for Operating Training
Group Employees: this has been implemented.
The Early Retirement Scheme which provides for the second to further
respondent to
be credited with 1.5 years retirement service for every
one year of service rendered to the appellant is the clause which is
the
subject of the action and the present appeal.
[9]
Essentially, the respondents’ case is
that they concluded an agreement with the appellant on 10 July 1998
in respect of the
early retirement scheme for licensed operators. The
practical implementation of the agreement was referred to a task
team, the
task team “
reached a
consensus as to the implementation of the agreement”
and this consensus was reduced to writing in the document referred to
in this judgment as MD102. That the above notwithstanding
the
appellant refuses to implement MD102 insofar as it relates to the
pension benefits for licensed operators. The respondents
thus seek a
declarator to enforce the implementation by the appellant of MD102.
[10]
The respondents’ cause of action is
that MD102 is a directive borne out of an agreement between the
parties. The Early Retirement
Scheme in the said directive was a
result of such an agreement and is therefore binding and the
appellant should be ordered to
implement the provisions thereof. To
sum up: for the respondents to have succeeded in the Labour Court,
they had to satisfy that
court that: (i) an agreement was in fact
concluded on 10 July 1998 which agreement was to the effect that a
licensed operator would
be credited with condoned service of six
months for each year served as a licensed operator, or pro rata for
part thereof in addition
to the 12 months ordinarily credited; (ii)
that the practical implementation of the agreement would be referred
to a task team
for implementation; (iii) that a task team was
established and concluded an agreement on the implementation of the
agreement of
10 July 1998; and (iv) that MD102 properly recorded the
implementation of the agreement agreed to by the task team.
[11]
The respondents disavow any rights flowing
from MD102 as a self-standing unilateral directive issued by the
employer. Their claim
is based on MD102 being a product of an
agreement concluded between them and the appellant.
[12]
As the claim is a contractual one, the
onus
was upon the respondents to satisfy the Labour Court that a contract
was in fact concluded between them and the appellant relating
to the
Early Retirement Scheme. There is no written memorial that can evince
this contract. The starting point to establish whether
an agreement
was concluded on 10 July 1998 is perhaps to record what transpired
prior to and at the faithful meeting of 10 July
1998 as testified to
by the parties and from the correspondence presented at the Labour
Court.
[13]
In 1995, Mr Willem Jungshläger, a
Psychologist at Eskom, compiled a report concerning early retirement
for licenced operators
and other workers in stressful jobs at Eskom.
He proposed that they be considered for early retirement and that
licensed operators
be taken off shift work five years before
retirement. The proposal was not accepted.
[14]
About two years later on 10 February 1997,
licensed operators under the hand of one Hutchings, wrote to Mr
Crookes the appellant’s
Executive Director: Generation and
requested that Koeberg follow the common international practice of
allowing early retirement
or secondment to a less stressful position
on day work hours for licensed operators.
[15]
On 1 April 1997, Mr Crookes responded to
the letter from the licensed operators. With respect to the issue of
early retirement he
said:
‘
EARLY
RETIREMENT
A decision has
been made at Executive Director level during April 1995 not to
systematically introduce early retirement to any category
of Eskom
employees. This was following a study undertaken into various
categories of employee, in particular Koeberg operators
and other
shift workers, by Willem Jungschlager.
This study
suggested strongly that the practice of moving away from shift work
in the latter years of one’s career should
be facilitated by
Eskom. Your specific inputs would be appreciated.
I
am informed that this is indeed the intention of Koeberg. This will
be achievable once the training is complete for current SRO
[licensed
operators]
candidates. In addition, the
principles described below will facilitate movement from shift work
to support organisations at Koeberg.’
[16]
About a year later in June 1998, Prozesky
was asked to prepare power point slides on certain topics that were
to be discussed at
a meeting to be held on 10 July 1998. One of the
topics on which he was to prepare the slides was the early retirement
proposals
for licensed operators.
The meeting of 10
July 1998
[17]
The trial was held nearly 14 year after
this meeting; memories had faded and testimony unhelpful, however, it
was common cause that
no agreement was concluded at this meeting.
Evidence on behalf of the respondents was that an “in principle
agreement was
concluded” whatever that means. What it does not
mean is that an agreement was concluded.
[18]
There is not a single witness who testified
to the fact that an agreement as alleged by the respondents in their
Statement of Case
was concluded. The repeated mantra was to the
effect that an “in principle” agreement was concluded on
10 July 1998.
An “in principle” agreement is not a
contract binding on the parties.
[19]
In the absence of any clear evidence or
minutes of the meeting pointing to the conclusion of an agreement in
respect of the Early
Retirement Scheme, the letters which are quoted
hereunder are the closest to having the minute of the meeting.
[20]
In a letter dated 13 July 1998 (three days
after the meeting), Prozesky addressed a letter to the staff of the
operating department
of Koeberg, reporting on the meeting of 10 July
1998. Although neither of the parties called Prozesky to testify both
parties placed
reliance on this letter, the relevant part of the
letter records:
‘
2
Early retirement proposal
For licensed
operators a system would [apply] whereby the individual would qualify
for additional condoned service according to
the following formula:
For each one year
of active licenses duty, or part thereof on a pro-rata basis, the
individual would be credited with (for example)
1.33 years service.
This would enable the licensed operator to qualify for early
retirement, depending on the number of years service
at this level.
The
business unit
[Koeberg]
would
then make contribution to the Eskom pension fund that would match the
normal pension penalties that would be applied to the
individual for
the early retirement.
The scheme would
be able to be exercised on a voluntary basis by each individual.
You are hereby
requested to consider these proposals and to provide your comments to
the Operating Manager before the end of July,
in order to ascertain
whether we have a mandate to proceed with the design and
implementation of the proposed changes. The changes
would still need
to be detailed and discussed at the local Business Unit Forum to
ensure that all Trade Unions have had the opportunity
to meaningfully
influence the proposals.
Should you have
any alternate proposals, I would welcome these for further
consideration and discussion.’
[21]
On 19 August 1998, Prozesky sent an almost
identical letter to Ms Boshoff (nee Begg), the Group HR Manager
except that the example
of “1.33 years services” had been
amended to “1.5 years service”, he stated that “
details
would be negotiated and included in the Koeberg Management Directive
No 102
”
[22]
A day later on 20 August 1998, Boshoff
wrote to the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), the other union
that had a presence
in Koeberg. This letter reported about the
meeting of 10 July 1998. The letter was headed “
Proposed
Koeberg Award/Reward System and Proposed Change in Retirement Age of
Licensed Employees”.
It said:
‘
Koeberg
has been researching issues in conjunction with the Generation Group
HR Manager and external Professional bodies, relating
to two major
areas of concern.
Koeberg
Management in conjunction with the Executive Director (Generation)
invited stakeholders to a meeting at Koeberg to discuss
some
proposals. (NUM did not attend).
The intent is to
allow local employees to influence the proposals before they are
directed through the appropriate routes (Executive
Director
(Generation) and Corporate Remuneration Manager) and dealt with
according to Eskom Policy and Procedures.
Everyone would be
given reasonable time to comment, after which management will direct
it to the next process step.
Your
co-operation will be appreciated.’
[23]
Two important issues are evident from the
above correspondence: firstly, Prozesky’s letter makes it clear
that only proposals
were made at the meeting of 10 July 1998 and that
the proposals were still open for comment and secondly, the letter
states that
further consultations with other stake holders with
respect to the issue of early retirement of licensed operators will
take place.
The letter from Boshoff complements that of Prozesky and
adds that “proposals” are open to be influenced before
going
through “the appropriate routes” and dealt with
according to the appellant’s “Policy and Procedure”.
[24]
The contents of the above quoted letters
both of which relate to what transpired at the meeting of 10 July
1998 in my view indicate
that the appellant was seriously dealing
with the demands of the licensed operators and that the discussions
were on-going and
yet to be finalised. The letter from Boshoff to
NUM, which had no members who were licensed operators, also
points to the
fact that the consultation that was to commence to deal
with the issues relating to the licensed operators was not confined
to
licensed operators, or their union (the first respondent) but had
to be discussed on a much broader basis.
[25]
My view is fortified by the evidence of
Douglas who testified on behalf of the first respondent. Douglas was
the chairperson of
Solidarity, the Trade Union that represents all
the licensed operators. His evidence was not that at the meeting of
10 July 1998,
an agreement was concluded in respect of early
retirement but that there was a discussion on early retirement at the
meeting
(“spoke about early
retirement”)
. In fact, he
concedes that the early retirement issue was not one of the principal
issues that the meeting of 10 July was to consider
and regarded the
discussion on early retirement as “
a
brainstorm”
and of “
throwing
ideas”
around.
[26]
Neither Hutchings nor Wilcenski the other
witnesses who testified on behalf of the respondents stated that an
agreement was in fact
concluded at the meeting of 10 July 1998.
Wilcenski spoke of “an understanding” being reached and
an “in principle”
agreement being concluded. Hutchings
went further he regarded the whole discussion on the Early Retirement
as just talk because
according to him, he knew it had to be in
writing and had to go through a proper process. The evidence led on
behalf of the respondents
established as a fact that no agreement was
concluded on 10 July 1998 and that the proposals which the appellant
did make had to
go through a proper “process”.
[27]
The evidence led on behalf of the
respondents also supported the evidence of Boshoff who testified for
the appellant. Boshoff was
at the meeting of 10 July 1998 and said
that no agreement was concluded at that meeting: that discussions
were open ended; that
further discussions still had to take place;
that other interested parties- trade unions – had to be
consulted; that the
scheme had to go through the process in terms of
the recognition agreement concluded between the appellant and the
trade unions
operating at Eskom; and, that the early retirement
policy had to go through the Pension Fund Advisory Council before
being referred
to the Pension Fund Board of Trustees for
consideration.
[28]
The oral evidence supported by the letters
evinces that
proposals
were made at the meeting of 10 July 1998 and all staff were called to
comment on them. The fact that no agreement was concluded
is further
evident from Prozesky’s statement contained in his letter of 13
July 1998 that: “
the changes would
still need to be detailed and discussed at the local Business Unit
Forum to ensure all Trade Union had an opportunity
to meaningfully
influence the proposals.”
This is
in line with what Boshoff wrote to NUM stating that comment
will be called for before further steps are followed
as provided in
“
Eskom Policy and Procedures.”
[29]
The above demonstrates as a fact that no
agreement was concluded on 10 July 1998. All that happened at the
meeting of 10 July 1998,
was that the appellant made certain
proposals with respect to early retirement for licensed operators
which proposals remained
under discussion and no final conclusion was
arrived at nor could a final decision be arrived at until such time
that all stake
holders were consulted and appellant’s policy
and procedure were complied with.
[30]
In the circumstances, based on the
allegation made in the respondents’ Statement of Case its
action is liable to be dismissed.
[31]
Respondents however aver that MD102 is
proof that an agreement was concluded. Clearly MD102 deals
inter
alia
with early retirement for licensed
operators and records what Prozesky referred to as proposals in his
letter of 13 July 1998.
But again, there is no evidence of any
agreement that was concluded by any task team nor is there any
evidence of any consultations
that gave birth to MD102. Reliance was
initially placed on the letter addressed by Boshoff to Prozesky dated
2 November 1998 to
bind the appellant to the provisions
dealing with early retirement in MD102. The letter states:
‘
PROPOSED
RECOGNITION SYSTEM FOR LICENSED OPERATORS
You may proceed
to negotiate and implement the above system at BU level.
Please ensure
that you document the process and establish the necessary BU
Procedure.
Regards’
[32]
Respondents
however, themselves conceded that the above letter “
pertained
exclusively to the reward and recognition aspect”
.
In fact, respondents go on to state: “
We
will not dispute that insofar as Prozesky wished to get endorsement
and consent of head office for what he was doing, that he
operated in
error when he thought that document [above letter] produced consent
to the early retirement scheme.”
[1]
[33]
There was thus nothing before the Labour
Court to indicate any agreement that was concluded between the
appellant and the respondents.
Insofar as MD102 constituted an offer
made to the respondents, there is no evidence of any acceptance of
this offer. Insofar as
MD102 was a management directive and not an
agreement, it was withdrawn and there is no challenge by the
respondents to it being
withdrawn as such.
[34]
In the circumstances, the respondents had
failed to prove that a contract was concluded between them and the
appellant in respect
of early retirement benefits for licensed
operators.
[35]
The
appellant’s explanation as to why the early retirement scheme
provision found its way in to MD102 was that Prozensky misconstrued
the letter referred to above from Boshoff. He understood the letter
to say that the early retirement for licensed operators had
also been
agreed upon and must be incorporated into MD102. That this must be so
is evident from the fact that the early retirement
scheme provisions
were withdrawn by the appellant from MD102. The reasons proffered by
the appellant why the early retirement scheme
was not supposed to be
part of MD102 and why it was withdrawn when it discovered that it was
included in MD102 was that the early
retirement provisions for the
licensed operators had to be dealt with according to appellant’s
policy and procedures and
this had not happened. Also correspondence
produced before the Labour Court indicates that the discussions in
respect of the early
retirement scheme were on-going as late as
middle November 1998.
[2]
[36]
Furthermore, the correspondence that
followed the meeting of 10 July 1998 indicated that the head office
and other unions had to
be consulted on this issue. Hutchings on
behalf of the respondents testified that Koeberg could not have its
own process without
the approval of the head office and in line with
his evidence Douglas testifying for the respondent conceded that NUM
had to be
consulted about the early retirement policy for licensed
operators. There was no evidence that this had been done by 2
November
1998.
[37]
As against the respondents’ evidence,
the evidence of the appellant was that the early retirement policy
affected an employees’
condition of services (this was conceded
by the respondents) and, as such, a specific process had to be
followed in accordance
with recognition agreements concluded with the
trade unions that operate within the appellant’s organisation
as well as the
appellant’s own organisational policy. None of
which was done.
[38]
Also, it was instructive to note the
correspondence from one Jan Olkers, copied to Ms Boshoff stating that
while there was empathy
for the licensed operators, the early
retirement scheme had to get the support of the “
Pension
Fund Regional Advisory Council in Bellville…who will then
refer it to the Pension Fund Board of Trustees for consideration.”
The date bandied about or rather
mentioned to make representations to the Pension Fund Regional
Advisory Council in Bellville was
17 November 1998, which was days
after MD102 was issued. This demonstrates the on-going nature of the
discussion on early retirement
scheme for licensed operators.
[39]
Finally, the respondents took the view that
MD102 was duly signed by Prozesky’s delegatee on his
instructions and the appellant
was therefore bound by it. This
argument, for reasons already stated, is misconceived. A signature on
a document by one party
cannot as a matter of course evince a
contract between two or more parties. The parties must meet the
requirements essential for
the conclusion of a contract before a
contract can come into being. There is no evidence here that the
appellant and the respondents
had met the necessary requirements to
bring about an agreement between them in respect of the early
retirement for licensed operators.
[40]
In any event, appellant avers that
Prozesky, who delegated MD102 to be signed on his behalf, had neither
the power nor was he authorised
to do so. The respondents’
response to this was that the appellant had in fact authorised him to
sign MD102 and could therefore
not question his authority to do so.
The respondent’s view is not borne out by the evidence
presented at the Labour Court.
[41]
The evidence on behalf of the appellant
was, as stated earlier, that the issue of early retirement related to
an employee’s
conditions of service and, as such, was an issue
of interest not of a right. Since the appellant and the trade unions
including
first respondent, have a recognition agreement which sets
out how issues of interest must be dealt with, neither party may
by-pass
the recognition agreement. It is common cause that the
process set out in the recognition agreement, with respect to the
early
retirement scheme for licensed operators, was not followed by 2
November 1998. That being so, an early retirement scheme could not
be
agreed to without following the proper process. Prozesky could
therefore not have had actual authority or any other kind of
authority to conclude an agreement by by-passing the established
bargaining relationship.
[42]
Knowing the above circumstances, for
respondents to argue that Prozesky had ostensible authority to
conclude the agreement is of
no merit. The first respondent, as a
party to the recognition agreement, could therefore not be
misled into believing that
Prozesky was entitled to by-pass
collective bargaining structures, nor could the first respondent ever
have believed that because
there was a separate budget at Koeberg (it
being common cause that Koeberg as a business unit had its own
budget) that this meant
that, that budget could be utilised to
conclude an agreement on an interest dispute outside the collective
bargaining structure
and relationship.
[43]
On 10 July 1998, the parties had agreed to
discuss the proposals in a structured manner and in accordance with
the policies and
procedures which were in place at the appellant and
to consult all the stake holders. The agreement contended for by the
respondents
is manifestly at odds with what was agreed to at the
meeting of 10 July 1998.
[44]
In these circumstances, there is also no
basis for the operation of the Turquand Rule, as contended for by the
respondents. The
Turquand Rule does not apply where the party
contending for its application is aware that internal processes and
procedures have
not been met. The issue of the early retirement
scheme for licensed operators was what was being dealt with. As this
related to
pensions which was a condition of service, it had to be
sanctioned by the head office after proper consultation had taken
place
as required by the recognition agreement. This did not happen.
Respondents are aware of the process that had to be complied with
and
the fact that it was not, that being so there was no basis for them
to rely on the Turquand Rule.
[45]
The respondents have failed on every level;
they have failed to established that an agreement had in fact been
concluded on 10 July
1998, as stated in their Statement of Claim;
they have further failed to prove that MD102 constitutes an agreement
which they concluded
with the appellant; and, finally that Prozesky
was duly authorised to conclude an agreement as evinced by the early
retirement
provisions of MD102.
[46]
This then leaves the issue of costs. I see
no reason why costs should not follow the result. There was simply no
basis for the respondent
to seek the relief they did based on a
contract they alleged was concluded on 10 July 1998. They themselves
were of the view at
the trial that no such contract was concluded as
they had alleged. They persisted with their claim and raised other
spurious grounds
in an attempt to justify their claim.
[47]
In the result, I make the following order:
(i)
The appeal is upheld with costs which
include costs of two counsel;
(ii)
The order of the Labour Court is set aside
and replaced with the following:
“
The
action is dismissed with costs including costs of two counsel”.
Waglay
JP
I agree
Musi
AJA
I agree
Dlodlo
AJA
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE
APPELLANT: P Pretorius SC with M. Lekoane
Instructed
by Perrot, Van Niekerk Wood
Matyolo
Inc
FOR THE
RESPONDENTS: MSM Brassey SC
Instructed
by De Lange Attorneys.
[1]
Record
page 247 lines 5-12.
[2]
See particularly correspondence from Jan Olkers at pages 133- 134.