de facto retrenchmentsection 12(4)retrenchment packagearbitration awardcitation of parties
Tags
Unfair DismissalRetrenchmentTermination on Notice
legislation
Statutes Cited
Labour Act
Labour Act
Labour Act
Labour Act
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the citation of the respondent as \"Thomas Meikles Stores\" instead of \"Greatermans Stores (1979) (Pvt) Limited\" rendered the appeal a nullity.","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The respondent's legal persona is Greatermans Stores (1979) (Pvt) Limited, but the trade name is Thomas Meikles Stores."}
{"issue_text":"Whether the termination of the appellants' contracts under section 12(4) of the Labour Act constituted a de facto retrenchment, given that a retrenchment package had been approved by the Retrenchment Board.","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The Retrenchment Board approved a retrenchment package, but the respondent terminated contracts under section 12(4) instead."}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The appellants were employees of the respondent who were informed of a intended retrenchment exercise. The Retrenchment Board approved a retrenchment package, but the respondent did not implement it and instead terminated the appellants' contracts of employment in terms of section 12(4) of the Labour Act. The appellants appealed to the Labour Court, arguing that the termination was a de facto retrenchment.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases