Home

Review applications and post-transfer realities

By Samiksha Singh, Director, Employment, Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr

 

When contemplating the purchase of a business as a going concern, it is necessary to carry out the appropriate due diligence of the respective business. It is always positive to find that no red flags exist and especially comforting to know that the business has, in the past, successfully defended unfair dismissal claims. There is an arbitration award in favour of the business so you think that there is no cause for concern. Think again! Get those additional warranties.

 

Section 197 of the Labour Relations Act (LRA) provides for the automatic transfer of employment rights and obligations which existed immediately before the date of transfer of business and continue in force as if they have been rights and obligations of the new employer. Of particular relevance, s197(5) of the LRA also provides that the new employer will be bound by any arbitration award, in respect of employees to be transferred, immediately prior to the date of transfer. 

 

The purpose of s197(5) of the LRA was scrutinised by the Labour Appeal Court in High Rustenburg Estate (Pty) Ltd v NEHAWU obo Cornelius & others.

 

This dispute spanned approximately 14 years since the dismissal of 18 employees. The dismissals were initially found to be fair by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) during 2004. Aggrieved by the CCMA’s award in favour of High Rustenburg Hydro (Pty) Ltd, (the old employer at the time), National Education Health & Allied Workers’ Union (NEHAWU) instituted review proceedings in the Labour Court. Prior to the finalisation of the review proceedings, High Rustenburg Hydro (the old employer), sold its business as a going concern. Subsequent to further commercial transactions, High Rustenburg Estate (Pty) Ltd (the applicant) became the new employer.  

 

The old employer failed to inform the Labour Court of the transfer of its business during the review proceedings. When the Labour Court set aside the CCMA award, declared the dismissals to be unfair and ordered compensation equivalent to 12 months’ remuneration for the 18 employees, the old employer did not pay the compensation, resulting in a writ of execution being issued against property in order to secure payment of the compensation owed to the dismissed employees. 

 

The applicant became aware of the dispute as the property which became the subject of a writ of execution formed part of the business that had been transferred to it and therefore belonged to the applicant.

 

Further protracted litigation ensued as the applicant argued that NEHAWU was required to obtain a separate declaratory order which held that it was liable for the old employer’s debt. The applicant also argued that it was not provided with an opportunity to defend a claim against it when it became the new employer. The applicant was therefore permitted to file a stated case, in which it argued that the writ of execution be set aside. 

 

Upon hearing the stated case of the applicant, the Labour Court found that the writ of execution was lawfully issued in terms of s197(5) of the LRA and the property of the applicant could validly be sold in execution. It is this order that has become the subject of appeal in the present case. 

 

The Labour Appeal Court was required to evaluate “whether a substitution of an arbitration award made after the transfer of the business from an old employer to a new employer binds the new employer in that the award is deemed to have taken effect at the very least from the date on which it was made, albeit incorrectly”.

 

The Labour Appeal Court reiterated that the purpose of s197, in its entirety, was to ensure job security of affected employees when a business is transferred. Therefore, in the circumstances of the present case where the employees were eventually successful, they could not be denied protection simply because of the timing of the transfer of the business of their old employer. 

 

In essence, the Labour Appeal Court held that the review and substitution of an arbitration award is of full force and effect as if it was done on the date of the arbitration award. Whilst the arbitration award which was initially in favour of the old employer will undoubtedly favour the new employer in terms of s197(5) of the LRA, so too must the reversal of that arbitration award bind the new employer, albeit many years later. 

 

It is, therefore, important for “old and new” employers to take caution in respect of favourable arbitration awards considered during a due diligence of a proposed sale of business, as a reversal of the award will bind the new employer.

 

For more information please contact Samiksha Singh at

Article published with the kind courtesy of Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr www.cliffedekkerhofmeyr.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Law Summaries and Articles

 

Can employees be dismissed for refusing to accept new terms and conditions of employment?

Can an employer dismiss employees because they refuse to agree to a change to their terms and conditions of employment? An initial answer may be, “yes”.

Read More >>>

 

Escape route: “Resignation with immediate effect”

The latest case in the ‘disciplining employees who have resigned with immediate effect’ saga has brought about more uncertainty as to whether an employee who resigns with immediate effect shortly before a disciplinary hearing can avoid disciplinary action and subsequent dismissal.

Read More >>>

 

Freedom of expression or incitement to commit an offence? A constitutional challenge

On 4 July 2019, the North Gauteng High Court handed down judgment in the case of The EFF and other v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and other (87638/2017 and 45666/2017) in which the EFF and Julius Malema (the applicants) sought to have s18(2)(b) of the Riotous Assemblies Act, No 17 of 1956 (Riotous Act) declared unconstitutional.

Read More >>>

 

Consolidated, comprehensive or general final written warnings

Regarding dismissal, according to the Code of Good Practice, “the courts have endorsed the concept of corrective or progressive discipline. This approach regards the purpose of discipline as a means for employees to know and understand what standards are required of them.

Read More >>>

 

 

 

 

 

 

Courses and Workshops

 

                   

 

The OHS Act and the Responsibilities of Management

22 November 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

29 November 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Stay Easy: Cape Town

Employment Equity Committee Training

22 November 2019

Protea Hotel Fire & Ice: Menlyn

Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment Course

27 November 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Stay Easy: Cape Town

Workshop Incident/Accident Investigation Course

28 November 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Stay Easy: Cape Town

AARTO and the Impact on Your Business

28 November 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

    

 Our Clients 

 

Android App On Google Play

Android App On Google Play