Home

 

Is the reaching of the retirement age a barrier to a reinstatement claim?

By Siphamandla Dube, Senior Associate, Fasken

 

Reinstatement is the primary remedy under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and involves placing an employee back into the position they would have occupied but for their dismissal.  If the exceptions to the remedy of reinstatement do not apply, the Labour Court and arbitrators only have discretion with regard to the extent to which reinstatement should be made retrospective.[1]

 

Is reinstatement competent when an employee has passed the retirement age?  This is the question that the Labour Court had to determine in Samuel v Old Mutual Bank and Others (2019) 40 ILJ 205 (LC). 

 

Ms Samuel had worked for Old Mutual Bank for close to 26 years in various clerical positions until she was dismissed in 2007 for acts of misconduct.  Dissatisfied with her dismissal, Ms Samuel referred a dispute to the CCMA challenging the fairness of her dismissal and sought reinstatement.  The arbitration award was issued on 4 April 2011.  The arbitrator found that on the overall evidence Old Mutual Bank had failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that Ms Samuel’s dismissal was fair.  

 

Notwithstanding the finding that Ms Samuel’s dismissal was unfair, the commissioner declined to reinstate her but ordered Old Mutual Bank to pay her compensation equivalent to 12 months’ remuneration. 

 

In reaching his finding that reinstatement was not the appropriate remedy, the commissioner based his finding on the fact that the employment relationship between Ms Samuel’s and her managers Prem Naidoo and Barney Walker was intolerable and that there were new systems in place which Ms Samuel would have to be trained on .  This training would take close to six months as Ms Samuel had been away from the operations for close to four years. 

 

Dissatisfied with the award, Ms Samuel applied to the Labour Court to review the commissioner’s decision not to grant her reinstatement.  Old Mutual Bank opposed Ms Samuel’s review application on various grounds which included amongst others, the relief she sought namely reinstatement, was not competent on the basis that by time the review application was heard, she had passed the retirement age.  Old Mutual Bank argued that the effect of reinstatement was that Ms Samuel would receive compensation in excess of the 12 months remuneration which is a statutory limit on compensation in terms of the Labour Relations Act. 

 

For the purposes of this article we focus on how the Labour Court dealt with Old Mutual Bank’s argument that reinstatement was not a competent remedy since Ms Samuel had passed the retirement age.

 

The normal retirement age for Old Mutual Bank’s employees was 61 years of age.  Ms Samuel would in the normal course of events have retired on 31 August 2012.  The matter was heard by the Labour Court on 1 March 2018. 

 

The Labour Court rejected the commissioner’s reasons for refusing to grant reinstatement for a number of reasons.    

 

In respect of Old Mutual Bank’s argument that Ms Samuel was not entitled to reinstatement since she had reached the retirement age, the Labour Court held that at the time of her dismissal, Ms Samuel had not reached the retirement age, nor had she reached retirement age at the time the arbitration was concluded.  Given that Ms Samuel was reviewing the decision not to order her reinstatement, if that decision was reviewable, it needed to be substituted with the correct decision.  On this basis, the Labour Court held that to find that a reinstatement order was incompetent would simply serve to prejudice the rights of employees who are dismissed shortly before their retirement or in circumstances where a review application is delayed beyond the employee’s retirement age.  The Labour Court concluded that this would certainly be unfair to employees.  

 

The Labour Court held that it is an inherent risk faced by employers in labour litigation where a final decision is deferred while the litigation is ongoing, and it was for this reason that the Labour Relations Act specifically provided for reinstatement as a primary remedy unless the exceptions in section 193(2) are applicable.  Accordingly, the Labour Court ordered that Ms Samuel be reinstated from the date of her dismissal to the date upon which she would have retired had she not been dismissed. 

 

Furthermore, the fact that a significant period might have lapsed from the date of dismissal to the date of the judgment is not a bar to reinstatement.  An employee whose dismissal is substantively unfair should not be disadvantaged by the delays of litigation where she or he has not unduly delayed in pursuing the litigation.[2] 

 

This case highlights the inherent risk in dismissal dispute in respect of an employee’s primary remedy of reinstatement.  In this case, the Labour Court confirmed that where the commissioner refuses to award reinstatement and the employee challenges the failure not to reinstate, the employer carries the risk to pay backpay to an employee in the event that the award is reviewed and set aside by the Labour Court and reinstatement is awarded.  In circumstances where an employee is challenging the failure to reinstate, employers should also consider whether or not to cross-review the award to challenge the commissioner’s finding that the employee’s dismissal was unfair. 

 

For more information kindly contact Siphamandla Dube, at

 

 

[1] Xstrata South Africa (Pty) Ltd (Lydenburg Alloy Works) v National Union of Mineworkers obo Masha and Others [2017] 4 BLLR 384 (LAC)

[2] Equity Aviation Services (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration & others (2008) 29 ILJ 2507 (CC) 51-52

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

19 September 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

29 November 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Stay Easy: Cape Town

Managing Day to Day Issues/ Problem Employees Full day workshop

20 September 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

27 September 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Cape Town

Employment Equity Committee Training

27 September 2019 (Fully Booked)

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

04 October 2019

Southern Sun: Maharani: Durban

01 November 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

07 November 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Cape Town

AARTO and the Impact on Your Business

02 October 2019

Protea Hotel By Marriott Tyger Valley: Cape Town

03 October 2019 (Fully Booked)

Emperors Palace Convention Centre

04 October 2019 (Fully Booked)

Emperors Palace Convention Centre

11 October 2019 (Fully Booked)

Emperors Palace Convention Centre

18 October 2019

Southern Sun: Elangeni: Durban

31 October 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment Course

18 October 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

27 November 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Stay Easy: Cape Town

Problem-solving and Decision-making Skills

24 & 25 October 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

Workshop Incident/Accident Investigation Course

25 October 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

28 November 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Stay Easy: Cape Town

Managerial and Leadership Skills

06, 07 & 08 November 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

2019: Case Law Updates

15 November 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre  

  

 Our Clients 

 

Android App On Google Play

Android App On Google Play