IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT DURBAN
CASE NO: D582/98
In the matter between
JAYANTHEE DEVI SINGH First Applicant
PRISCILLA PADAYACHEE Second Applicant
NATIONAL EMPLOYEES’ TRADE UNION Third Applicant
and
MONDI PAPER Respondent
JUDGMENT
de VILLIERS A J
1. This is a referral in terms of section 191 (5) (b) (ii) of the Labour Relations Act of 1995 (“the
Act”) in which the First and Second Respondents (hereinafter referred to as “Singh” and
“Padayachee” respectively alternatively collectively as “the Applicants”) claim reinstatement,
alternatively compensation, for their alleged unfair dismissal.
1. The background to the dispute is as follows.
1. Towards the end of 1996, the Respondent introduced an integrated business information
system, Systems Applications Products (hereinafter referred to as “SAP”) at its Merebank Mill
where Singh and Padayachee were employed in the purchasing department, at that stage, in the
positions of import buyer and typist/buying clerk respectively.
1. As at the end of 1996, Singh had 15 years service as a buyer in the Purchasing Department
and Padayachee had 11 years service with the Respondent, having worked first as a packer
(eight years) and then as a typist/buying clerk (three years).
1. During February 1997, Singh was “swopped” with Sylvia Basudew, taking over Basudew’s job
as expediter/buyer in the department while Basudew was moved to take over Singh’s job as
import buyer.
1. On 27 May 1997, the Respondent issued a special company brief to all employees and to the
Third Applicant (hereinafter referred to as “the union”) in which the employees and the union were
advised, amongst other things, that the Respondent was in the process of implementing an
integrated business information system, SAP, which will “replace many of the cumbersome
manual data processing systems currently in place”. It advised further that as a consequence,
“certain jobs are likely to become redundant in due course” and that “certain employees” may be
faced with retrenchment. In its brief to the union, it invited the union to “participate constructively
in a process of consultation” and advised the union of the dates when meetings (two morning
meetings a week between 10 June 1997 and 24 June 1997) would be held with the union and
representatives from the Paper Printing Wood and Allied Workers Union (hereinafter referred to
as “PPWAWU”) and listed the issues for consultation as follows.
• Reasons for automation and work reorganisation
• Possible redundancy
• Numbers and categories of employees affected
• Possible alternatives should redundancy materialize
• Selection criteria should retrenchment result
• Severance packages
• Assistance to affected employees
• Timing
1. Meetings with these representatives from these unions were held.
1. During June 1997, the manager of the purchasing department, Grant Moxley (“Moxley”),
produced four organograms of the departmental structure which indicated that the positions then
held by the Applicants were to become (Respondent’s version) or had become (Applicant’s
version) redundant.
1. In July 1997 the Applicants were called to a meeting with Moxley and the Respondent’s
Human Resources Manager, Stephen Glendinning to discuss their positions in the department.
The substance of what was discussed at this meeting is in dispute.
1. On 9 October 1997, a notice in terms of the provisions of section 189 was sent to all
departments in the Respondents mill at Merebank. The purchasing department, being an
administrative department, was not involved.
1. During the first quarter of 1998, Les Winkworth (hereinafter referred to as “Winkworth”), a
union shop steward at the mill, was involved in restructuring and consultation exercises with the
nonadministrative departments.
1. On 1 March 1998, Singh obtained a National Diploma in Purchasing Management from
Technikon SA.
1. On 2 March 1998, the Applicants received letters headed: NOTIFICATION IN TERMS OF
SECTION 189 LABOUR RELATIONS ACT OF 1995 IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASING
DEPARTMENT. Copies of these letters were forwarded to Winkworth.
1. Thereafter nine meetings between 3 March 1998 and 6 May 1998 were held involving
Moxley, members of the human resources department, Winkworth and the Applicants.
1. On 7 May 1998, the Applicants received letters confirming that their positions had become
redundant and that their services would be terminated with effect from 31 May 1998.
1. On 6 August 1999 Padayachee was offered and accepted temporary employment as a packer
in the coating plant. This position was made permanent on 1 October 1999.
1. On 12 July 1999, Singh was offered a temporary position as a data capture clerk in the
Engineering Department.
1. Although I am mindful of Froneman DJP’s (as he then was) direction in Johnson and
Johnson (Pty) Ltd v CWIU [1998] 12 BLLR 1209 (LAC) that when dealing with dismissals for
operational requirements, an adjudicator should not employ a “checklist approach”, the issues in
dispute and the evidence led in this matter are most conveniently dealt under the following
headings.
• Whether there was a fair reason for the dismissals.
• Whether consultations commenced when the Respondent “contemplated dismissal”.
• Whether the Respondent consulted with the correct parties in terms of section 189 (2)
(b) of the Act.
• Whether the consulting parties attempted to reach consensus on appropriate measures
to avoid the dismissals
• Whether the Respondent disclosed in writing all relevant information in terms of Section
189 (3) of the Act.
• Whether the consulting parties attempted to reach consensus on the methods for
selecting the employees to be dismissed (Section 189 (2) (b) of the Act);
• Whether the Respondent selected the employees to be dismissed according to criteria
that had been agreed upon by the consulting parties or, if no criteria were agreed upon, criteria
that are fair and objective (Section 189 (7) of the Act.
Was there a fair reason to dismiss the Applicants
1. The reason why the Applicants were selected for dismissal was because, according to the
Respondent, their positions as typist/buying clerk and expediter/buyer had become redundant as
a result of the introduction and implementation of SAP.
1. There is no allegation in the Applicants’ statement of claim as to whether the positions had
become factually redundant. The issue was not canvassed in any one of the nine consultation
meetings and there is no evidence before me to suggest that it did not make business sense for
the dedicated positions of expediter/buyer and typist/buying clerk to be removed from the
department.
1. The totality of the evidence suggests that the SAP programme absorbed much of the manual
work which had previously been done by the Applicants and that other aspects of their work were
comfortably and logically absorbed into other functions where there was now spare capacity
following the implementation of SAP.
1. I have thus no reason to contest the Respondent’s argument in closing that the decision to
1. I have thus no reason to contest the Respondent’s argument in closing that the decision to
retrench the Applicants was based on the operational requirements of the Respondent. There was
a commercially rational motive behind the decision to restructure the purchasing department in the
way that it did as a result of which the positions of expediter/buyer and typist/buying clerk became
redundant.
1. One of the reasons why the Applicants felt aggrieved about their dismissals was the history
that led to their being in the two positions which became redundant after the implementation of
SAP.
1. While there may be some merit in their belief that they were unfairly treated prior to their
positions becoming redundant and that had they been in different positions or received more
training they would have been in positions which did not subsequently become redundant, or that
they found themselves in these positions, as Winkworth tried to suggest in one of the consultation
meetings, because of the laws which discriminated against them during apartheid, it is not for this
Court, sitting to determine the fairness or otherwise of the dismissal, to go back in time and
determine whether those earlier decisions were fair or not. If they felt they had been unfairly
treated that the changes made were unilateral or that they were the victims of an unfair demotion
or that they were being victimized, they had their remedies at the time to deal with the problem.
1. It would be untenable for any employer to have to answer for decisions made some time prior
to a restructuring exercise as to how those employees whose positions had become redundant
came to be there. That is one of the reasons why employer’s have to justify their selection
criteria. Redundancy merely means that that an employer is faced with excess employees for the
number of jobs required for the efficient running of a business or department. The determination
of who should stay and who should go must be done in accordance with a fair procedure and
according to either agreed or fair and objective criteria. If this were not so, then the retrenchment
of those whose jobs became redundant would be automatic and an employer would not have to
of those whose jobs became redundant would be automatic and an employer would not have to
go any further than convincing a Court that he/she had a good business reason for making the
jobs redundant. No consideration would have to be given selection criteria. The incorporation of
section 189 (7) of the Act as a separate requirement indicates that that is not what the legislature
intended.
Did consultations commence when the Respondent contemplated dismissing the
Applicants
1. The Applicants are of the view that consultations should have commenced when their
positions became redundant and that that moment occurred during or about July 1997 when the
Applicants were called to the meeting with Moxley and Glendinning to discuss their positions. In
their evidence, the Applicants were adamant that they had been told then that their positions had
become redundant; that the work they did after the discussion with Moxley and Glendinning was
significantly different to the work they were doing before. Moxley’s organograms drawn up at that
time also showed that their positions had become or were to become redundant. This view was
also supported by the evidence of Derek Naidoo. I am therefore inclined to accept that the
positions became factually redundant sometime between June and July 1997.
1. The Respondent’s representative argued that there is a difference between restructuring which
leads to redundancy and the contemplation of dismissing those whose jobs have become
redundant. He argued that a distinction needs to be drawn between the moment when an
employer anticipates restructuring and the moment when, as a result of that restructuring, the
employer contemplates dismissing employees affected by the restructuring.
1. The Applicant’s representative argued that Moxley was bound to begin consultations in
July 1997 because section 189, in the absence of a collective agreement which stipulates the party
with whom an employer must consult, compels consultation with representatives of employees or
employees “ likely to be effected” and, as at July 1997 the Applicants were the ones in the purchasing
department likely to be dismissed as a result of the redundancy. As I understand his argument, he
submitted that any delay between a position becoming redundant and the beginning of consultation
on alternatives to the work previously being done or possible dismissal as a result of the redundancy,
would serve to prejudice the affected employee because that employee would effectively be
“sidelined”, placing him/her in the position of a temporary employee and he or she could therefore no
longer lay claim to the permanent positions in their former departments.
1. The case law on which this Court has relied in order to determine when consultation should
commence suggests that consultation must commence before a final decision to retrench (that is
terminate the contract of employment of the employees) has been made. (See Atlantis Diesel
Engines (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Metalworkers 1995 (3) SA 22 (A); South African
Clothing and Textile Workers Union and others v Discreto, a division of Trump and
Springbok Holdings [1998] 12 BLLR 1228 (LAC); Decision Surveys International (Pty) Ltd v
Dlamini & others [1999] 5 BLLR 413 (LAC))
1. Therefore an employer in the position of the Respondent, may be entitled to introduce new
technology and reorganise the way in which work is done without resorting to the process
described in section 189. If the reorganisation affects an employee’s conditions of employment
then any change to those conditions, the employer may have to negotiate the change for other
reasons contemplated in the Act but not, at this stage, in terms of section 189. It does not
necessarily follow (as Mlambo J appears to infer (in Malcolm Sayles v Bartan Steel CC
J1384/97 unreported) that when an employee’s position becomes redundant in a department,
dismissal is ipso facto the next step. This must be so particularly in large organisations, like the
employers where the opportunities for alternative employment exist.
1. There may well be instances where the proposed restructuring or reorganisation if
implemented will inevitably lead to the retrenchment of the employees concerned. In such cases
the employer is bound to consult on the proposed restructuring and reorganisation prior to
implementation. But this is not one of them. There is nothing in the evidence to persuade me that
as at July 1997, the Respondent had an intention, let alone had made up its mind, to retrench the
Applicants despite the fact that their positions in the purchasing department had become factually
redundant. The overall purpose of the consultation process (as Jammy AJ points out in Michael
Fletcher v Elna Sewing Machine Centres (Pty) Ltd J 2430/98 unreported at paragraph 39) is
not to assist employers to “make up their minds” but rather to “determine, by way of consensus,
whether there is any practical and viable basis for changing them”.
1. In the absence of evidence which persuades me as to when, exactly, the Respondent
contemplated dismissing the Applicants, I must accept that that moment happened on or about 2
March 1999 when the letters were sent to them and that, as far as this aspect of the dispute is
concerned, there was compliance with section 189.
Did the Respondent consult with the parties in terms of section 189 (2) (b) of the Act.
1. In terms of section 189 (2) (b), which requires the employer, in the absence of a collective
agreement regulating the issue or a workplace forum, to consult with:
“any registered trade union whose members are likely to be affected by the proposed dismissals”
1. At the time that the Respondent engaged in consultations regarding the retrenchment of the
Applicants (3 March 1997), both Singh and Padayachee were members of NETU. (Although at the
time, Singh’s salary advice slip reflected stop order payments in favour of PPWAWU, in evidence
she confirmed that she became a member of NETU in January 1997.) It is common cause that
Winkworth was the elected shop steward for NETU members and that Winkworth engaged with
Moxley as Singh and Padayachee’s representative. Whether Moxley was prepared to recognise
him as a NETU official for the purposes of consultation or merely as the Applicants’ representative
was immaterial as far as compliance with this provision was concerned. De facto Winkworth was
a trade union official as defined in the Act endowed with all the necessary rights to enable him to
perform his duties in the consultation process. If he was aggrieved about the Respondent’s failure
to recognize him as such or if the Respondent’s attitude towards him prevented him from
exercising his rights as defined in the Act, he had his remedies in terms of the Act and possibly in
terms of the recognition agreement. If he believed consultation was necessary with a higher level
of union representation (with fulltime union officials, for example) he could have drawn them into
the process and the Respondent would have had no basis in law for excluding them.
1. In passing, and only because it was raised in argument, I must point out that section 189 (1)
(c) does not make reference to the level at which trade union representation in a consultation
must occur. An employer is simply required to consult with “any registered trade union”. The
Applicants’ representative suggested in argument that this section requires the involvement of full
time union officials. As authority he cited my judgment in MM Pretorius v Blyvooruitzicht Gold
Mining Company Limited (J4116/98 unreported). Not only is this matter distinguishable on the
facts, while I am of the view that wherever possible full time officials ought to be involved in order,
objectively, to protect all their members’ interests in a retrenchment exercise and because they
tend to have greater expertise and experience and must be involved where a collective agreement
stipulates their intervention, representation at shop steward level will suffice to ensure compliance
with this section unless there is an agreement to the contrary.
1. In any event, this was never the Applicants’ complaint. It is clear from the transcripts of the
consultation meetings that Winkworth wanted recognition as a trade union representative. The
complaint was not that fulltime NETU officials should be involved.
1. Even if I am wrong on this point, and the the reference to trade union in section 198 (1) (c)
requires the attendance of full time union officials in the consultation process, the Respondent’s
failure to comply did not necessarily mean that the actual procedure which was followed was
unfair.
1. In considering this point I have been guided by the principles enunciated in Johnson and
Johnson (supra) and in Siphiwe Sikhosana and Others v Sasol Synthetic Fuels (J949/98)
both of which suggest that, in determining the fairness of a dismissal for operational requirements,
a formalistic, “checklist” approach should not be adopted noncompliance with one or more of
the subsections will not necessarily render the dismissal unfair. Brassey AJ, in Sikhosana
(supra) goes a step further than Froneman DJP (as he then was) and suggests that section 189
says nothing at all about fairness and that:
“ultimately it provides only a guide for the purpose and cannot be treated as a set of rules that conclusively
disposes of the issue of fairness .”
1. It is in this context that any failure by the Respondent to comply strictly with section 189 (1) (c)
must be considered and I have relied on the following to conclude that the failure did not result in
unfairness to the Applicants:
1.4. the Applicants were satisfied with Winkworth as their representative despite the fact that
he was a shop steward and not a full time union official;
1.1. at no stage during the consultation process did the Applicants make any attempt to
rectify the issue;
1.1. there is no evidence before me to suggest that the Applicants were prejudiced by the
Respondent’s noncompliance with the section.
Did the consulting parties attempt to reach consensus on appropriate measures to avoid
dismissals?
1. The transcripts of what transpired at the nine meetings and the correspondence which passed
between Moxley and Winkworth during the course of the process run to some 458 pages and bear
testimony to the contest of wills which took place between the two of them rather than a record of
two people genuinely trying to find each other in a joint consensus seeking process.
1. While Winkworth’s attitude was unnecessarily confrontational, Moxley and the human
resources department must share the blame for failing to take account of Winkworth’s concerns
(even if they believed they were irrelevant to the process) and failing to make a genuine attempt to
deal with them. For example, an outsider, with industrial relations training and some knowledge of
section 189, reading the record of the first meeting, will understand Winkworth’s concerns
regarding the issue of representation immediately. He was merely trying to assert his union’s
rights in terms of section 189 (1) (c) and to get clarity on that point. Instead of trying to fudge the
issue as he did, Moxley (who, from the transcripts at page 89 of the bundle, clearly did not
understand the distinction between recognition of the union for the purposes of collective
bargaining and union representation for the purposes of a retrenchment consultation) or the
human resources personnel could have offered some reassurance that Winkworth was, indeed,
there in his capacity as a trade union official entitled to all the benefits attaching thereto in terms of
section 189 (4) regarding the disclosure of information.
1. What the Respondent also did not understand was that, the selection of only Singh and
Padayachee to participate in the consultation process regarding the restructuring of the whole
department, led to a reasonable perception on Winkworth’s part that they were the only ones in
the department likely to be dismissed. What he was looking for was an explanation as to why
they have received the section 189 notices and not anyone else in the department. This, too,
ought to have been addressed.
1. By the same token, if Winkworth was dissatisfied with Moxley’s attitude to him, why didn’t he
seek assistance from the more experienced, full time officials? Why didn’t he follow the dispute
procedure to enable the process to move forward and to protect the interests of his two charges?
As the Respondent rightly pointed out in argument, this was not a game. It affected the lives of
two people at the most fundamental level their ability to earn a living. Winkworth ought to have
followed through on the numerous disputes he threatened to declare in order to move the process
forward.
1. Winkworth behaved irresponsibly by failing to take his difficulties up at a higher, more
experienced level in the union hierarchy. So, too, the Respondent’s human resources department
for failing to approach more senior union officials to assist when it found that its efforts to reach
consensus were being frustrated by what they perceived as the irrational and “nit picking”
behaviour of Winkworth.
1. A joint problem solving approach requires that the consulting parties attempt to understand
and deal with the other’s needs and interests even if they believe those needs and interests to be
illfounded. Instead Winkworth approached the consultations in an adversarial, positional way and
Moxley and the human resources department appered to be more concerned about form rather
than content. Between meetings, the human resources personel did some damage control, by
way of correspondence (signed by Moxley but drafted by the human resources personel), to put
things back on track. At times Winkworth attempted to understand where management was
coming from. But, overall, their “attempt” left much to be desired and offers a learning to
managers and trade union officials that an issue such as retrenchment should not be left in the
hands of the inexperienced if this aspect of the process is to be respected. At the very least,
training on joint problem solving should be given.
1. There is an equal responsibility on both parties to attempt to reach consensus on the issues
outlined in section 189 (2). Where one party can be held accountable for not making a genuine
attempt, the Court would be bound to take that into account when assessing the fairness of the
process. But, when both share the blame, no account should be taken of the failure and neither
side should benefit from the failure of the other. Regretably, Singh and Padayachee are the
victims. Their fate may have been different had their representative been less adversarial and
confrontational and if the human resources department had played a more active role in the
process. But they chose their representation and must stand or fall with it. It would be unfair to
penalize the Respondent for any failures on its part when the union representative is equally guilty
of failing to make a genuine attempt to engage meaningfully with the Respondent on the material
issues which came up for discussion and debate.
1. I must note, however, that I am satisfied that both sides explored alternatives to retrenchment.
The fact that they did not agree does not take the matter any further.
1. It would not serve any purpose to burden this judgment with all the evidence in this regard.
The various positions which were explored are a matter of record and are not in dispute. On the
evidence I believe the Respondent gave adequate reasons as to why it could not accommodate
the alternatives proposed by the Applicants. Equally, Winkworth gave adequate reasons as to
why he was not prepared to explore the alternative offered to Padayachee by the Respondent (the
position of packer in the Finishing department), namely that it had to be advertised in order to be
fair to those who had already been retrenched (this being a good example of why the legislature
intended union officials to be involved in retrenchment exercises) and that it was a more menial
job than Padayachee’s position in the Purchasing Department.
Did the Respondent disclose, in writing, all relevant information to the other consulting
party?
1. There is a vast amount of evidence relative to this issue contained in the transcripts of the nine
meetings, correspondence between the parties and in the evidence led at the hearing. Again it
would serve no purpose to burden the judgment with a summary of this evidence.
1. The question one has to ask in this regard is not (as the Applicants’ representative suggested
in argument) whether Winkworth was provided with the same information as had been provided in
other departments but whether Winkworth had sufficient information to engage meaningfully in the
consultation process concerning the likely retrenchment of the Applicants and whether he was
provided with the necessary information on request.
1. Of significance is what transpired at the fourth meeting (pages 179 and 180 of the bundle)
where Moxley confirmed that he had provided Winkworth with a list and some details of the
employees in the purchasing department and he also confirmed that he provided Winkworth with
the organogram. Moxley then asked Winkworth whether there was anything that he has “missed
out” and Winkworth replied as follows:
“I’m not too sure at this point, but I’d have to come back and check on my list ”.
1. The only other information requested after this is contained in a letter from Winkworth to
Moxley in which Winkworth requested information on temporary employees (bundle at page 278)
information which, according to Glendinning, was easy to obtain. It is common cause that this
information was never given to Winkworth.
1. What this suggests is that, while there may have been bits and pieces of information
requested along the way which were not provided, after the fourth meeting Winkworth, having
been specifically asked to revert with anything that has been “missed out”, appears to have
abandoned his request for any outstanding information as nothing further is requested in terms of
his list.
1. As far as the Respondent’s failure to provide a list of temporary employees is concerned, this
was not pursued after the request was made. The focus of the consultation shifted from exploring
alternatives to discussions on selection criteria and the selection process. There is an equal
obligation on both sides to do what is necessary to explore alternatives. If this piece of information
was important, one would have expected Winkworth to make a greater effort to obtain it. Instead,
the matter was not mentioned again. To hold the Respondent alone responsible would not be fair.
Did the respondent select the Applicants for dismissal according to selection criteria that
had been agreed alternatively selection criteria that were fair and objective?
1. It is selfevident from the transcripts that the parties were not in agreement with the criteria nor
with the process in terms of which the Applicants were selected for retrenchment. I have reached
this conclusion from the following.
1.1. Athough there was a lot of discussion during the consultation process regarding the
selection critieria and the weight to be attached to each critieria, during the course of the seventh
meeting, Winkworth made it quite clear (at pages 396 and 397 of the bundle) that he was not
prepared to accept the criteria. He then tentaively agreed to proceed with the assessment process
by appointing a supervisor to assist with the assessment but made it quite clear that he intended
to take up the issue of the criteria at another time (at the bottom of page 396 top of 397) saying
that “we will cross that bridge when we come to it”. At page 402 he once again confirmed that he
did not agree with the form containing the criteria which was going to be used to assess the
employees concerned but (at 405) agreed that he would approach a supervisor in the purchasing
employees concerned but (at 405) agreed that he would approach a supervisor in the purchasing
department to assist with the assessment.
1.1. At the eighth meeting Winkworth again confirmed that he had not agreed to the criteria
in terms of which Moxley and Clive Gilham, the company buyer, had already assessed the
Applicants and claimed that he had not approached a supervisor in the purchasing department for
three reasons:
1.1.3. he had not had time;
1.1.3. he did not believe that only one supervisor should do the assessment; and
1.1.3. he was still in disagreement regarding the use of Moxley’s assessment form.
1.1. During the course of this meeting Moxley suggested that Winkworth arrange for a
supervisor to assess the employees concerned on both sets of critiera (his and Winkworth’s). At
one point Winkworth appears to agree with this proposal (at page 445 of the bundle) but later in
the same meeting (at page 449) he described this proposal as “lunitis”. Still later in the same
meeting (at page 452), Winkworth suggested that one person assess the employees concerned
on both sets of criteria. By the end of the meeting there was no agreement regarding the criteria.
The lack of consensus was confirmed in a letter from Winkworth to Moxley on 24 April 1998 in
which Winkworth suggested that an independent arbitrator be appointed to “resolve the matter of
criteria”.
1.1. At the end of the eighth meeting Winkworth agreed to revert to Moxley the next day (by
12h00) to advise him as to when he would be able to approach a supervisor in the department of
do the assessment. However, in the same letter to Moxley Winkworth indicated that it would not
be transparent or fair if he proceeded with the assessment process in accordance with the
“restrictions” imposed by Moxley.
1.1. In response Moxley wrote to Winkworth giving him a “final opportunity (at page 461 of
the bundle) to arrange for one supervisor to complete the assessment of the employees
concerned. In turn, Winkworth responded by letter (at page 488 of the bundle) saying, once
again, that because of the restrictions which Moxley had placed on the “way and manner in which
my assessment is to be carried out, has made it impossible for me to carry out this assessment in
a fair and defendable manner.”
a fair and defendable manner.”
1.1. At the final meeting the assessments conducted by Moxley and Gilham were discussed
and rejected by Winkworth.
1.1. At no stage during the consultation process (according to the transcripts) did Winkworth
agree that only four employees in the purchasing department should fall into the group to be
assessed for selection. His view at the time (and I believe this is the material time for
determining whether the selection criteria were agreed or not) was that seven employees who
appear on the same band as Singh and Padayachee in the organogram under discussion should
be in the group to be assessed (see page 448 of the bundle). There is nothing further in the
transcripts or correspondence at the time to indicate that he changed his view on that point.
Winkworth’s evidence at the trial in this regard was unhelpful and confusing and I have therefore
made my finding that the employees to be selected for assessment, on a balance of probability,
was not agreed from the documentary evidence alone.
1. On this set of facts, at best for the Respondent, there may have been agreement, at one point,
as to who would do the assessments. There may also have been agreement on some aspects of
the selection criteria. But, there was sufficient disagreement to lead me to conclude that the
criteria were not agreed. There was also no agreement, at the time, as to who should be
assessed.
1. I must therefore determine whether the criteria and process in terms of which the Applicants
were selected for retrenchment was fair and objective. Under this heading there are three
considerations to be addressed:
1.1. whether the “band” of people chosen for assessment was fair;
1.4. whether the criteria used were fair and objective;
1.4. whether the process for assessing the Applicants was fair and objective.
1. The band of people chosen for assessment
1.1. Taking his evidence as a whole, it is clear that Winkworth had little if any knowledge as
to what the various people in the department did or who should be included in the band. I doubt
whether he engaged meaningfully with Singh or Padayachee on this issue. He appears to have
approached the issue purely on the basis of the organogram (at page 16 of the bundle) and
mechanically drawn a line to include various people. His evidence on this issue was confused
and contradictory as to who should have been in the band and I have therefore placed no reliance
on his evidence in this regard.
on his evidence in this regard.
1.1. The group that was chosen for assessment included the Applicants, Yagan Moodley,
the direct buyer in the stores department and Sylvia Basudew, the import buyer. In evidence
Singh and Padayachee confirmed that this selection was fair but insisted that G G (“Stanley”)
Naidoo (“Naidoo”), the chemical buyer in the raw materials department, ought to have been
included as well.
1.1. It is common cause that Naidoo has an inferior scholastic qualification to both the
Applicants. Moxley testified that he was left out of the band because he had years of experience
and special skills relative to the purchase of chemicals. Derek Naidoo, who was senior buyer at
the time and who was Padayachee and Naidoo’s supervisor at the time testified that Naidoo was
efficient and that it was not possible to make his position redundant. He also testified that it would
not have made sense to put Padayachee in Naidoo’s job because Naidoo had the experience and
training in negotiating with suppliers and that Padayachee was “having difficulty in her position”.
He was unable to comment on whether she was “trainable”.
1.1. On this evidence, I agree with Respondent’s representative that there were fair and
objective grounds for excluding Naidoo from the band and that an employer is entitled exclude
certain employees for selection on the basis of their experience and expertise.
1. The criteria used for assessment
1.1. At the end of the process, Singh and Padayachee were selected on the basis of an
assessment done by Moxley and Gilham according to the following criteria (they are listed in
terms of the weighting given to them from greatest weighting to least):
Performance
• Quality of Work
• Initiative/Energy//Self Motivation
• Contribution to team performance
• Communication (Process Speed)
Service and Time in Current Job
• Mondi Service
• Time in Current Job
SAP competence
• Level of competence
Disciplinary Record
• Willingness to cooperate
• Interpersonal relationships
• Disciplinary record
Education and Training Qualifications
Attendance
1.1. In order to assess the fairness and objectivity of the criteria, I have taken account of the
form which Winkworth wanted to use as well as the evidence of Singh and Padayachee.
1.1. The form which Winkworth wanted to use contained the following criteria (and
are ranked below in order of importance):
Performance
• Quality of Work
• Initiative/Energy/Self Motivation
• Contribution to Team Performance
• Communication
Education, Training Qualifications
Job Modules or Mondi Courses Completed
Years of Mondi Service
Attendance
1.1. Comparing the two forms, I must conclude that the parties accepted that performance,
education, training and qualifications, years of Mondi service and attendance were fair and
objective criteria. Singh testified that she was satisfied that the criteria which Moxley and Gilham
had used to assess her were objective. She only disagreed with the scores she had received
relative to Moodley and Basudew. All Padayachee had to say on the issue, when asked to
comment on the form, was that she didn’t know “how it works”.
1.1. In his evidence Winkworth complained about the way in which the critieria were
weighted and indicated that the criteria relating to discipline (willingness to cooperate and
personal relationships) could not be assessed objectively. Otherwise he agreed with the criteria
used.
1.1. While the collective wisdom of labour law tends to shun performance as a selection
criteria for retrenchment, unless there is a measurable yardstick against which the performance
of the employees in the band can be measured (such as quotas, preidentified targets etc), it
seems the parties in this dispute had little difficulty accepting this criteria as fair and objective.
Singh and Winkworth’s concern was not the inclusion of this as a criterion but rather the manner
in which it was used to assess the employees in the band. Even in argument the Applicants’
representative focussed on the identity of the assessors and the manner in which they were
assessed and did not attack performance per se as a criterion. If the parties were prepared to
accept performance as a fair and objective criterion, then so must I. The manner in which the
Applicant’s performance was assessed is another matter and is dealt with extensively below.
1.1. As far as Winkworth’s problems with the inclusion of discipline as a criterion are
concerned, particularly willingness to cooperate and personal relationships. I tend to agree with
him. There is no way that “willingness to cooperate” and “personal relationships” can be
established objectively. These are both highly subjective criterion and, unless agreed to, ought
not to have been included.
1. The process used to assess the Applicants
1. It seems to me that this is the cornerstone of the Applicants’ difficulties with their retrenchment.
If one analyses the evidence in its totality, one must accept that:
1.1. the Applicant’s positions had become redundant;
1.4. they were satisfied with their representation in the consultation process;
1.4. most of the information they required to engage meaningfully in the consultation
process was given to them;
1.4. alternatives to dismissal were explored;
1.4. they accepted (if not at the time but certainly in evidence) that most of the criteria used
were acceptable.
1. Winkworth’s major concern was the manner in which the assessment was done the
weighting given to each of the criteria, the fact that they were assessed only by Moxley and
Gilham “behind closed doors”, that all the supervisors were not involved and that some training
was required before the assessment could be done.
1. As far as the weighting is concerned, the evidence tendered by Winkworth at the hearing of
1. As far as the weighting is concerned, the evidence tendered by Winkworth at the hearing of
this matter made no sense and I am satisfied that, if the parties accept the hierarchy (which they
largely did), then I have no difficulty with the weighting which the Respondent attached to each of
the criteria.
1. What is of concern to me is that the Respondent allowed the Applicants to be dismissed on the
basis of the assessments done by Moxley and Gilham, despite Winkworth’s protestations in the
eighth meeting, simply because at some point during the seventh meeting Winkworth had agreed
to this process. As I have already pointed out, using performance as a criterion is problematic. If
an employer chooses to do so, he/she must be extremely careful about the way in which they
assess an employee’s performance, even if the criterion itself has been agreed.
1. Any industrial relations practitioner worth their salt would agree with many of the concerns
expressed by Winkworth during the eighth meeting and in his letters to Moxley (at pages 459 and
488). During the course of the eighth meeting he raised the following concerning his failure to
approach one supervisor to do the assessment (apart from the issue of getting time off work to
attend to the process).
1.1. The fact that the criteria had not been agreed. In this regard he makes an extremely
valid point (at page 424 of the bundle):
“How is it possible for me to go and explain a person how to use the criteria with a measuring stick on which
we don’t even agree? So I will go and explain to him my way of doing it, which is not the same criteria that
you want ot use, and how is it possbly (sic) for him to implement it? ”
1.1. He then goes on to make another valid point about Moxley’s suggestion that both sets
of criteria are used, namely:
“..to have two sets of criteria, what does it mean at the end of the day? We, we just taking it from
one room to another room.”
He later calls this “lunitis”.
1.1. He believes all the supervisors, not only Gilham, should be involved because the
employees in the band report to different supervisors.
1.1. After a long and rambling discussion involving the choice of people to be involved in the
process (both in the band and as assessors) which is not resolved, Winkworth made another
suggestion (at page 452) that one, independent person do the assessment with both sets of
critieria. He was concerned Moxley was not independent because he was the manager with
“vested interests”. While Moxley may not have agreed with this, the fact that he was perceived as
not being impartial ought to have alerted the Respondent, if it was going to use performance as a
criteria, to find another process to assess the candidates likely to be retrenched.
1. The following day Winkworth wrote to Moxley with a copy to Glendinning (page 460) voicing
his concerns about the process and suggesting that an independent arbitrator be called in to
“resolve the matter of criteria”. Given the state of play at this point, it was an excellent suggestion.
Moxley’s response was dismissive and he merely placed reliance on the fact that Winkworth, at
the seventh meeting, agreed to get one supervisor to do the assessment.
1. Winkworth’s responded by indicating that, in his opinion:
“…the whole exercise of assessment done by you was biased and amounts to nothing but a ‘kangaroo’
effort. I must therefore seriously pose the question whether you have any intention of going forward in a fair
and meaningful manner ”.
1. From the evidence of Mandy Pillay, Moxley was less than satisfied with Singh’s performance
as the import buyer. Pillay described told that court that he was “furious” with Singh. But Singh’s
performance was never subjected to a fair and proper performance management process. His
perception of her performance was based on the say so of Mandy Pillay even though, as Moxley
himself conceded, there could have been competition between Pillay and Singh. In addition, Singh
testified that, at the time when the section 189 notification were issued, she was in the process of
trying to resolve two disputes with Moxley one concerning her move from import buyer to
expediter and the other concerning her increase. There was evidence that Moxley had also had
difficulties with Padayachee as a result of her demand for a proper job description and an acting
allowance. Padayachee described him as being “nasty” to her.
1. For these reasons there was good reason to suspect that Moxley may have been biased and
partial in his assessment of the Applicants. Again, because of the sensitivity and problems with
using performance and subjective criteria such as “willingness to cooperate” as criteria for
selection in a retrenchment exercise, the Respondent ought to have taken this accusation
seriously and done something about it to ensure that the process in terms of which the Applicants
were ultimately selected for retrenchment was fair.
1. At the final meeting, Winkworth was particularly concerned that the Applicants’ performance
and particularly their “willingness to cooperate” had been assessed on purely subjective grounds.
At page 519 of the bundle, Padayachee made a telling point when she said:
“I didn’t work with Clive so how can Clive assess me, and the other question I need to know is, when a boss
assesses an Employee, isn’t he or she supposed to be present there , in order to know what’s going on?”
1. Winkworth also made a good point when he said that, if there were instances when an
employee’s performance was assessed in the absence of the employee concerned, “it must be
defendable”. He once again expressed his concern regarding Moxley’s involvement and made
the point, too, that Gilham had not been in the department very long. His plea to have all the
supervisors involved was repeated.
1. The remarks made by the Applicants’ representative in closing are apposite and are worth
repeating:
“The questions remain, were (sic) actual performance measured or was team performance
measured, was performance in actual work done measured or was performance in the Purchasing
Department before July 1997 measured? What was measured and did Moxley and Gilham go
about it in the same way?”
1. Thus, for these reasons, while Singh and Padayachee’s performance, relative to Moodley and
Basudew (the other two employees who were subjected to the assessment process) may have
been poorer (and there is no hard evidence suggesting that it was because neither had ever been
subjected to a proper and fair performance management process in terms of which their
performance could be objectively assessed), the way in which their performance was assessed
was unfair and subjective.
1. In essence the Applicants were dismissed because their manager and one supervisor (who
had no direct knowledge of Padayachee’s performance and limited knowledge of Singh’s
performance) regarded them as poor performers without ever having given them an opportunity to
prove themselves competent in a properly structured performance management process.
1. At the very least, once Moxley and Gilham had made their assessments, the Applicants ought
to have been given a proper opportunity to make representations on the low scores they received
regarding their performance, if necessary, to a higher authority. (In this regard see De Vries and
others v Lanzerac Hotel and others (1993) 14 ILJ 1460 (LAC))
1. The question I have to ask myself in this regard is whether the failure of the Respondent to
find a process in which the Applicants’ performance could be assessed on a fair and objective
basis (whether through training or the identification of the appropriate persons to do the
assessment) rendered the dismissal of the Applicant’s unfair, given the findings I have made in
favour of the Respondent with regard to most of the other issues which required determination in
this dispute and Respondent’s argument that there was substantial compliance with section 189.
1. Selection is dealt with twice in section 189 (in section 189 (1) (2) (b) and in section 189 (7).
This indicates the importance of the selection process in a retrenchment exercise. Apart from
attempting to seek alternatives to dismissal or measures to avoid dismissal, when only some of a
group of employees are equally likely to be retrenched, the selection process must rank as the
most fundamental issue for scrutiny in order to determine whether the dismissal was fair or not.
An employer can get everything else right but if the selection process, during which the
employees who were ultimately dismissed is found to be unfair and subjective, the entire process
is flawed thereby. Even if Winkworth had proceeded, as he initially agreed to, and found another
supervisor in the department to assess the Applicants’ peformance, the process would still have
been tainted with subjectivity and unfairness, unless that supervisor could show that his/her
assessment could be objectively justified which, in the absence of a proper performance
management system in place in that department, he/she would have not been able to do.
1. As Brassey points out in Siphiwe Sikhosana and Others v Sasol Synthetic Fuels (supra)
compliance with section 189 does not necessarily make the dismissal for operational
requirements fair. This dispute, I believe, is one of those instances where, although the
Respondent has substantially complied with section 189, for the reasons stated above, the
dismissal was nevertheless procedurally unfair.
1. For these reasons, I find that, while the dismissal was substantively fair in that it was based on
the operational requirements of the Respondent, the selection of the Applicants for dismissal was
not effected in accordance with a fair procedure.
Relief
1. In this regard, as Johnson and Johnson (supra) suggests (at 1219GH) I am limited to
ordering compensation as opposed to reinstatement or reemployment and, if compensation is
ordered, the amount of compensation ordered must be equal to the remuneration the Applicants
would have earned between the date of their dismissal and the last day of the hearing, a period of
some 17 months. However, in line with subsequent decisions (such as, Vickers v Aquahydro
Projects (Pty) Limited [1999] 6 BLLR 620 (LC and Buthelezi v Amalgamated Beverage
Industries [1999] 9 BLLR 907 (LC)), and for the reasons stated in them, I believe compensation,
if awarded, should not exceed 12 months remuneration.
1. I must therefore decide whether to award the Applicants all (the full twelve months) or nothing.
1. The only guidance given by the Labour Appeal Court as to how this “all or nothing” discretion
ought to be exercised is at 1220A where Froneman DJP (as he then was) says the discretion not
to award compensation must be exercised judicially and at 1220CD where he says the following:
"The nature of an employee's right to compensation under s.194(1) also implies that the discretion not to
award that compensation may be exercised in circumstances where the employer has already provided the
employee with substantially the same kind of redress (always taking into account the provisions of s.194(1)),
or where the employer's ability and willingness to make that redress is frustrated by the conduct of the
employee."
1. In judgments subsequent to Johnson and Johnson , this court has introduced the notion of
fairness into the equation. (See Whall v Brandadd Marketing (Pty) Limited J1130/97
unreported ; Lorentzen v Sanachem (Pty) Limited [1999] 8 BLLR 814 (LC); de Bruyn v
Sunnyside Locksmith Suppliers (Pty) Limited [1999] 8 BLLR 761 (LC)).
1. As Grogan AJ points out in Whall v Brandadd Marketing (Pty) Limited at paragraph 37:
1. As Grogan AJ points out in Whall v Brandadd Marketing (Pty) Limited at paragraph 37:
“The sole guiding principle mentioned by the Labour Appeal Court on whether not to grant
compensation (or indeed whether to grant it) is that such decision must be exercised judicially.
Guidance as to how such a discretion should be exercised must be derived from the purposes of the Act as
a whole, read within the broader Constitutional context, and of sections 193 and 194 in particular.
When exercising the discretion as to whether to grant compensation the Court must, in my opinion, have
regard to what is fair to both the employee and the employer. One of the purposes of the Act is to protect
employees against unfair dismissal (section 185). Others are to advance economic development (section 1)
and to effectively resolve labour disputes (section 1 (d)(v)). While the punitive effects of section 194(1) may
be ameliorated by the (implicit) limit of compensation to the equivalent of 12 months' remuneration, the
decision as to whether to order compensation must nevertheless in my view be exercised with the above
considerations in mind.
1. The Respondent argued that Padayachee was not entitled to compensation for the following
reasons:
1.1. she failed to accept the reasonable alternative position offered to her of packer in the
finishing section;
1.4. she was reemployed by the Respondent as a packer earning R3 000,00 per month;
1.4. she did not accept the Respondent’s offer made to her that the Respondent would
consider any applications made by Padayachee for other positions and that she would be credited
with her previous years of service with the Respondent for the purpose of calculating her long
service award entitlements in the event of a further retrenchment exercise; and
1.4. the stance adopted by Winkworth during the consultation process namely that all
vacancies should be advertised so that recently retrenched employees should have similar
standing in applying for any such position.
1. In order to convince me that it had made adequate redress by virtue of the offer made to
Padayachee during the course of the consultation process, the Respondent would have to show
more than that the reason for refusing the offer or not taking up the offer was not good. It would
have to show that, if the Applicant had taken up the offer, she stood to gain as much as she
stands to gain from an order for compensation calculated according to the statutory formula. The
actual value of the offer made to Padayachee was never raised or canvassed in evidence.
However it was clearly a demotion (Moxley’s letter to Padayachee dated 31 March 1997 indicates
a loss of earnings (at page 190 of the bundle)) and that Padayachee regarded it as a step
downwards, “an insult”, having worked her way out of the mill as a packer and into a clerical
position and was confident that she could do the work even of a supervisor (having acted in that
position for a period of time).
1. On a balance of probability, on the available evidence, I must conclude that the value and
nature of the offer does not constitute “sufficient redress” for the purposes of denying Padayachee
compensation.
1. The fact that Padayachee was given temporary and then permanent employment as a packer
in the coating plant also does not constitute redress. According to her evidence, which was not
disputed, she heard about the temporary job from a friend and applied in the normal course. She
was interviewed and then given the job, not because the Respondent was trying to made amends
but, presumably, because she was the best person for the job. Were I to deprive Padayachee of
compensation for this reason, it would serve to penalize her for trying to mitigate any loss she
might have suffered as a result of the dismissal. Had I had an unfettered discretion, it would have
been appropriate to subtract whatever she has earned from any compensation payable.
Regretably, I am unable to do so (for reasons given in Johnson and Johnson (supra).
1. The fact that she did not accept the Respondent’s offer that it would credit her with her
previous years of service in the event of her being successful in any future applications for
positions with the Respondent is too nebulous a factor to be taken into account for the purposes
of this exercise.
1. There is thus no reason to deprive Padayachee of compensation due to her in terms of section
194 (1) of the Act. Her normal pay at the date of dismissal was R2 765,00 per month and she is
therefore entitled to compensation in the sum of R33 180,00
1. As far as Jenny Singh is concerned, the only redress which the Respondent has made was
the “with prejudice” offer of a six months fixed term contract as a data capture clerk, some 14
months after her dismissal. The salary she would have earned during this period would have
amounted to R13 488,82 before deductions (R519,20 per week x 4.33 x 12). The amount she
would have earned at her previous rate of pay (R3 000,00 per month, normal pay) over a 12
would have earned at her previous rate of pay (R3 000,00 per month, normal pay) over a 12
months period would have been R36 000 (before deductions). It is my view that substantially the
same kind of redress was not made and therefore Singh is entitled to compensation in the sum of
R36 000,00.
1. The Respondent’s representative argued that, apart from the fact that she refused the offer outlined
above, she should be deprived of compensation because of Winkworth’s insistence that positions be
advertised and because of her failure to advise the Respondent, in terms of her letter of dismissal, that she
wished to be considered for suitable vacancies. Again, it is my view, that the Respondent in order to make
redress for a wrong had to offer something more than an entitlement. It has always been open to the
Respondent to make Singh an offer by way of redress the dispute was referred to the CCMA in May 1997.
To hide behind her failure to exercise her options in terms of her letter of dismissal when she held the view
that she ought not to have been dismissed at all is opportunistic to say the least. To deny her compensation
because of her representative’s insistence that policy and procedures be properly followed would also be
unfair.
Costs
1. In terms of section 162, this Court may make an order for the payment of costs, according to
the requirements of the law and fairness.
1. In the normal course, costs would follow the result. However, in view of the fact that a number
of issues in dispute raised by the Applicants were resolved in favour of the Respondent, it would
be unfair to burden the Respondent for all of the Applicants costs, particularly in respect of the
eleven days which it took to hear this matter. In making the order I have taken this into account.
Leave to Appeal
1. Because of the nature of the evidence and the findings I have made, I am satisfied that, in the
event of either party seeking to appeal against this judgment by way of appeal or cross appeal,
the Labour Appeal Court could reasonably come to conclusions different from those arrived at by
this Court. In view of the costs already incurred by both sides in this dispute and in order to avoid
further, unncessary costs being incurred, I hereby grant the parties leave to appeal and cross
appeal as the case may be.
1. I therefore order as follows:
1.1. The dismissal of the First and Second Applicants was substantively fair in that it was
based on the Respondent’s operational requirements.
1.1. The dismissal of the First and Second Applicants was not effected in accordance with a
fair procedure in that the process in terms of which they were selected for dismissal was unfair.
1.1. The Respondent must pay:
1.1.1. the First Applicant the sum of R36 000,00 (thirtysix thousand rands) on or
before 24 December 1999;
1.1.1. the Second Applicant the sum of R33 180,00 on or before 24 December 1999.
1. The Respondent must pay the Applicants’ party and party costs excluding the costs of three of
the eleven days of the hearing.
. .
I de VILLIERS A J
Acting Judge of the Labour Court
Date of Hearing : 17 to 20 May 1999
13 to 21 September 1999
11 October 1999
Date of judgment : 15 December 1999
For the Applicants : Phillip Dreyer, Kocks Dreyer Attorneys
For the Respondents : Murray Alexander, Deneys Reitz Attorneys