Not reportable

the labour court of South Africa, 
held at CAPE TOWN
      case No: C159/2020
In the matter between:								 
ERIK ANETUKU LEMBA						       First Applicant
DID THIKAYA TSHAMALA 					  Second Applicant
KABEYA BUKASA 					                 Third Applicant
BUTOYI LEONCE NAHIMANA        				    Fourth Applicant
ERIC NIMUBONA 							       Fifth Applicant
MPUTUILO GARCIA 					                 Sixth Applicant
KASONGO WALANGA 						 Seventh Applicant
FIDELE SADRICMNZAYIKORERA      			               Eighth Applicant
SAFILI ZOZO 						                 Ninth Applicant
HASSAN GIHUNGU         					                Tenth Applicant
SETH TCHOMBO							Eleventh Applicant
OLIVIER NKESHIMANA						 Twelfth Applicant
ALAIN BUZANGA MULUMBA				       Thirteenth Applicant
and

METRO CITY PROTECTION SERVICES CC				Respondent

Date of Set Down: 28 January   2022
Date of Judgment:  This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal representatives by email, publication on the Labour Court website and release to SAFLII. The date and time for handing down judgment is deemed to be 10h00 on 21 February 2022.

Summary: (Unfair retrenchment – procedurally unfair)
JUDGMENT
LAGRANGE J 
Introduction
[1]	The matter concerns an alleged unfair dismissal for operational reasons, which the individual applicants claim was substantively and procedurally unfair. The respondent did file a notice of opposition but never filed an answering statement and when the matter was set down for hearing agreed to abide the outcome of the case, without appearing or presenting any argument as it was entitled to.
Summary narrative
[2]	The applicants undisputed version of events is that they were notified at the end of June 2019 by their employer in a letter dated 14 June that their contracts of employment would terminate at the end of that month, or on 1 July 2019 in the case of night shift workers. The reason for the termination of the contract was on account of the City of Cape Town (‘the city’) terminating the contract held by the respondent. The applicants were asked to file affidavits confirming the averments in their statement of case.
[3]	On the face of their own version, it appears that the cancellation of the respondent’s contract by the city was the reason for their retrenchment. The applicants did not set out any factual basis for claiming that their retrenchment was substantively unfair, and only made a bald allegation to that effect. Consequently, the court must conclude that the cancellation of the contract by the city was not disputed as a justification for their retrenchment.
[4]	In relation to procedural fairness, it is apparent that no prior notice was given to the applicants of their possible retrenchment as required by s 189(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995, and there were no consultations of any kind as required by that section.  They were also not paid full notice pay, leave pay and severance pay.  Their monthly remuneration was also short paid in varying amounts from 19 January to 19 June 2019. The details of the short payment of remuneration are set out in pages 2 to 4 of Annexure “A” attached to the statement of case. The severance pay, notice pay and accumulated short pay are set out in pages 7 to 11 of the same annexure. They are also entitled to interest on these amounts which were due and payable to them when they were retrenched on 30 June or 1 July. 
[5]	I am satisfied that the respondent completely failed to comply with the requirements of s 189 and that six months’ remuneration would be appropriate compensation for such a gross disregard for the fair procedural requirements of a dismissal for operational reasons.
Order
[1]	The applicants’ dismissal for operational reasons was procedurally unfair but substantively fair.
[2]	Within 15 days of the judgment, the respondent must pay each of the applicants the following amounts: 
2.1	their outstanding wages, notice pay, leave pay and severance pay as detailed in pages 2 to 4 of Annexure “A” attached to the statement of case (amounting in the aggregate to R 211, 581.61), a copy of which is attached to the judgment; 
2.2	interest at the prescribed rate of interest from the date of the termination of their services on the amounts referred to in paragraph 2.1 of this order, and
2.3	six months’ remuneration as compensation, namely R 31, 500 (thirty one thousand five hundred rands).

[3]	No order is made as to costs. 

_______________________
Lagrange J
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa

Representatives:
		
For the Applicant:			C J May of BDP Attorneys	
				
For the Respondent:			No appearance