(10)
(20)
(30)
(10)
(20)
(30)
C2.2570
J2907/98 1 JUDGMENT
Sneller Verbatim/ASS CASE NO. J2907/98
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
held at
BRAAMFONTEIN
20000929
In the matter between:
Applicant
versus
Respondent
J U D G M E N T
LANDMAN J :
1.Mr John Majoro was employed by Blyvooruitzicht Gold Mining Company Limited
from 9 September 1980 until the date of his dismissal on 24 February
1998. His services were termina ted due to the operational requirements
of the mine. During the relevant period of his employment, Mr Majoro
was a member of a trade union known as UASA. He was bound by the
provisions of the retrenchment agreement which had been entered into
between the mine and his union and various other unions.
2.As a result of his dismissal he launched proceedings in this court claiming
that his dismissal was unfair. The parties held two pretrial
conferences. At the pretrial conference of 16 August 2000 the parties
1
(10)
(20)
(30)
agreed that the termination of Mr Majoro's employment was for a fair
reason and the only issue in dispute was the procedural fairness of the
dismissal. It was agreed that the issues in dispute were that Mr Majoro
alleges that the termination of his services were procedurally unfair
because his representative was not consulted prior to the termination of
his services.
3.The mine recorded its position. It complied with the retrenchment agreement
and that it had consulted in accordance with the process established in
terms of the agreement and reached consensus on the issue of Mr Majoro's
dismissal before implementing the termination of his services.
4.The matter came to trial before me today. Evidence was led on behalf of
the mine through the persons of Mr Boshoff , the human resource manager,
and Mr Nelson, the chair of UASA at Blyvoor uitzicht. Mr Majoro in turn
gave evidence.
5.It is clear to me that the mine commenced negotiations at an early stage
and that these negotiations and consultations were recorded. The
consultations took place at what was termed a forum meeting which
consisted of mine management and various other unions including NUM and
UASA.
6.On 13 February at a meeting of the forum, manage ment provided details of
the divisions and jobs and numbers of persons which were to be
retrenched. At this stage they did not inform the unions of the
incumbents of these posts because it was agreed at this meeting that it
would not be appro priate to do so. At that meeting it was agreed that
(10)
(20)
(30)
volunteers would be called for to take voluntary retrenchment. This
would take place within a short period and thereafter discus sions would
be held between the various unions indivi dually and the heads of
departments where employees were to be retrenched.
7.Mr Nelson states that on 19 February he held a meeting together with five other members of his union with
various heads of departments including the production manager who was in charge of the shaft clerk,
Mr Majoro. The issue was discussed and he says that his notes reflect that some of the duties of Mr Majoro
were to be trans ferred to a Mrs Bernard as Mr Majoro was only working for an hour or two hours per day
and he was also working shifts. He says that at this meeting it was agreed that the retrenchment of
Mr Majoro would take place. The procedure to be followed was that the mine would prepare letters of
termination and they would be handed over to the employees concerned in the presence of a union
representative. When the forum again met on 24 February someone, presumably a NUM member pointed
out that Mr Majoro, who was the shaft clerk, had worked in the mornings since 1980 and was not informed
of the situation and he requested a meeting with management. It was, however, said that NUM had
approved the retrenchment, but this Mr Majoro was not a member of NUM, but of UASA. At this stage Mr
Boshoff, who was chairing the forum meeting, ruled that the production manager and the repre sentative of
UASA should attend to the case with the employee present. The forum meeting concluded at 16:10. There
after Mr Nelson and Mr Lourens went to discuss the situation with Mr Majoro.
8.Mr Majoro is concerned, because there was no contact between him and his
8.Mr Majoro is concerned, because there was no contact between him and his
union. He was unhappy about the fact that he had been dismissed.
However, he could throw no light on the question of whether or not
proper consultation had taken place.
9.I find that the evidence of Mr Boshoff and Mr Nelson is entirely
acceptable. This brings me to the conclusion that proper consultation
took place with the union representing Mr Majoro; that consensus was
3
(10)
(20)
(30)
reached that Mr Majoro should be retrenched and that this accordingly
was put into operation.
10.I accordingly find that in the circumstances the application should be
dismissed.
11.Mr Pretorius, who appears on behalf of the mine, has requested costs. If
I were to apply the law of costs strictly then the mine would be
entitled to their costs. But if I take into account the fact that Mr
Majoro was left somewhat in the dark about what happened, perhaps he
only found out this morning, and that he is unemployed and has a
difficult period ahead of him, I do not think in equity that I should
award costs in this case.
12.In the premises, therefore, the application is dismissed, but there is no
order as to costs.
AA LANDMAN
Judge of the Labour Court
APPEARANCES AS FOLLOWS:
FOR THE APPLICANT : MR Z MAHLAHLE