Emmanuel v KGB Security Systems (JS205/01) [2002] ZALC 114 (6 February 2002)

55 Reportability

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Unfair dismissal — Employee dismissed for operational requirements without proper notice — Employer failing to oppose application — Court finding dismissal both procedurally and substantively unfair — Employee awarded compensation equivalent to 12 months' salary.

Sneller Verbatim/DM
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JS205/01
2002-02-06
In the matter between
HARRY EMMANUEL Applicant
and
KGB SECURITY SYSTEMS Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
_
J U D G M E N T
Delivered on 6 February 2002
_______________________________________________________________
_
REVELAS J:
1. The applicant was dismissed by his former employer, KGB  
Security   Systems,   apparently   for   what   his   employer  
described   as   operational   requirements.     The   employee  
alleges   that   he   does   not   know   the   reason   for   the  
dismissal.   However, on the facts, it appears that in  
the opinion of the commissioner at the Commission for  
Conciliation,   Mediation   and   Arbitration   (“the   CCMA”),

it was a dismissal for operational requirements.  
2. In   the   certificate   of   outcome   of   the   matter,   the  
dispute   is   defined   as   an   alleged   dismissal   for  
operational requirements. 
1. 1. 3. The respondent has not opposed this matter, it has  
filed   a   letter   with   the   registrar   stating   that   it  
intended   opposing   the   matter,   yet   no   opposing   papers  
were   filed  and   a  notice   of  setdown   was  duly   faxed  to  
the   respondent   at   its   correct   fax   number,   as   was  
provided by it to the Labour Court. 
4. In the circumstances and on the applicant's uncontested  
version,   the   dismissal   was   both   procedurally   and  
substantively   unfair.    The  applicant   was  dismissed   on  
28 December 2000 and earned R1   710,00 per month.  
5. He is consequently entitled to compensation equal to 12  
months salary, which would amount to R20 510,00 which  
the respondent is ordered to pay him.
_______________
_
E. Revelas