NUMSA v Aloe Oil (Pty) Ltd

• Jurisdiction: http://justis.com/jurisdiction/166,South Africa
• Judge: Moshoana J
• Judgment Date: 17 March 2023
• Citation: 2023 JDR 2617 (LC)
• Hearing Date: 02 March 2023
• Docket Number: PS42/17
• Court: Labour Court

Moshoana J:

Introduction

[1]

This is a referral in terms of section 191 [1] of the Labour Relations Act [2] (LRA). The respondent, Aloe Oil (Pty) Ltd (Aloe), dismissed five members of Numsa, namely Mr. Clint Ludwick; Mr. Matyumza Ndodomzi; Mr. Elton Schoeman; Mr. Aarief Gallager; and Mr Scheepers Johan (hereafter collectively “the dismissed employees”). This referral was throughout the pleadings stage opposed by Aloe. Aloe had alleged that the dismissed employees were dismissed for reasons of its operational requirements. Leading to the trial, parties informed the Registrar that they were discussing settlement of the dispute. This Court issued a directive that this matter, if not settled by the parties, will proceed to trial on the allocated date.

[2]

On the morning of a two-day trial (2 March 2023), the attorneys of Aloe withdrew their services. Since there was already counsel on brief, Mr Grobler, he made a brief appearance to advice the Court of the late withdrawal. He asked to be excused from the matter and begrudgingly he was duly excused. This Court remarked that it was troubled by the eleventh hour withdrawal. Nevertheless, the Court proceeded with the matter on a default basis.

Background facts and evidence led

[3]

Aloe is a company involved in the transporting of fuel and oil. The dismissed employees were employed as Bulk Vehicle Operators (BVO) on various dates ranging from November 2010 up to and including July 2016. In support of their case of alleged unfair dismissal, the evidence of Mr. Clint Ludwick was

2023 JDR 2617 p3

Moshoana J

tendered. It suffices to mention that he testified that him and his co-employees were dismissed for no valid reasons. He further testified that he and others do not seek reinstatement. They seek compensation instead. Mr. Le Roux, appearing for the dismissed employee undertook to file an affidavit in support of a plea for compensation by 16 March 2023. The applicants’ version remained unopposed. Indeed, on 16 March 2023, affidavits were filed setting out the earnings of the dismissed employees.

Evaluation

[4]

The fact that the dismissed employees were dismissed became common cause. In terms of section 192 of the LRA, once a dismissal is established, the onus of an employer is to justify the fairness of that dismissal. Aloe was statutorily obliged to justify the dismissal so established. No testimony was led to justify the dismissal. Axiomatically, and owing to lack of...