SA Post Office v Mampeule

Last updated

SA Post Office Ltd v Mampeule is an important case in South African labour law, heard in the Labour Court.

Contents

Facts

The South African Post Office (SAPO) sought a declaratory order that the termination of a certain Mr K. Mampeule's employment, as a direct result of his removal on May 21, 2007, from SAPO's board of directors, did not constitute a dismissal for purposes of section 186(1)(a) of the Labour Relations Act [1] (LRA). This proposition was founded on a term of Mampeule's contract of employment with SAPO, read together with SAPO's Articles of Association, to the effect that his removal from SAPO's Board gave rise unavoidably to the automatic and simultaneous termination of his employment contract with SAPO.

Mampeule was appointed as SAPO's Chief Executive Officer on a five-year fixed-term contract. In terms of the said contract of employment, the employment relationship could be terminated on any of four grounds, namely:

  1. automatically upon expiry of the five-year period;
  2. incapacity resulting from poor work performance or ill-health;
  3. misconduct; or
  4. SAPO's operational requirements.

The Minister of Communications suspended Mampeule pending a forensic audit into his conduct. Subsequent thereto Mampeule was removed as a director of SAPO pursuant to the provisions of section 220 of the Companies Act, [2] arising from a resolution tabled by the Minister of Communications for Mampeule to be removed as a director. The day after the meeting when Mampeule was removed as a director, the chairperson of SAPO's Board formally informed Mampeule in writing that following his removal from SAPO's Board, his employment contract has terminated automatically and simultaneously with his removal as a director.

Counsel for SAPO argued that SAPO did not terminate Mampeule's contract of employment. It was argued that the termination of Mampeule's contract of employment came about as an automatic and simultaneous result of his removal from SAPO's Board. Thus, it was Mampeule's removal from SAPO's Board by operation of a contractual term that brought about the termination of his employment contract, and not by virtue of a deliberate act on the part of SAPO to sever the employment relationship. As such, it was argued by counsel for SAPO that there was no dismissal of Mampeule by SAPO.

Judgment

Ngalwana AJ ruled that Mampeule had indeed been dismissed by SAPO, inter alia, for the following reasons:

The question was whether that is permissible in law. The court referred to the English Court of Appeal case of Igbo v Johnson Matthey Chemicals Ltd . [3] The court found that the terms of Mampeule's employment contract could not neatly be construed in isolation from SAPO's act of removing Mampeule from the Board. Effectively, had the Minister of Communications not removed Mampeule from the Board, his employment would not have terminated. The removal of Mampeule as a director triggered, proximately or effectively, the termination of his employment. The effective cause of termination of Mampeule's contract of employment was thus clearly the Minister's removal of him from SAPO's Board.

The court held that the automatic termination clause was impermissible and could not rightly be invoked to stave off the clear and unambiguous effect of the Minister's overt act, and concluded that the termination of Mampeule's contract of employment pursuant to a contractual term in his employment contract, read together with the Articles of Association of SAPO, were impermissible in their truncation of the provisions of Schedule 8 of the LRA—and possibly even the concomitant constitutional right to fair labour practices. Provisions of this sort, militating as they do against public policy by which statutory rights conferred on employees are for the benefit of all employees and not just an individual, are incapable of consensual validation between parties to a contract by way of waiver of the rights so conferred.

See also

Related Research Articles

United Kingdom labour law Labour rights in the UK

United Kingdom labour law regulates the relations between workers, employers and trade unions. People at work in the UK can rely upon a minimum charter of employment rights, which are found in Acts of Parliament, Regulations, common law and equity. This includes the right to a minimum wage of £8.91 for over-25-year-olds under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The Working Time Regulations 1998 give the right to 28 days paid holidays, breaks from work, and attempt to limit long working hours. The Employment Rights Act 1996 gives the right to leave for child care, and the right to request flexible working patterns. The Pensions Act 2008 gives the right to be automatically enrolled in a basic occupational pension, whose funds must be protected according to the Pensions Act 1995.

In employment law, constructive dismissal, also called constructive discharge or constructive termination, occurs when an employee resigns as a result of the employer creating a hostile work environment. Since the resignation was not truly voluntary, it is, in effect, a termination. For example, when an employer places extraordinary and unreasonable work demands on an employee to obtain their resignation, this can constitute a constructive dismissal.

In United Kingdom law, the concept of wrongful dismissal refers exclusively to dismissal contrary to the contract of employment, which effectively means premature termination, either due to insufficient notice or lack of grounds. Although wrongful dismissal is usually associated with lack of notice sometimes it can also be caused by arbitrary dismissal where no notice was required but certain grounds were specified in the contract as being the only ones available but none existed.

Unfair dismissal in the United Kingdom is the part of UK labour law that requires fair, just and reasonable treatment by employers in cases where a person's job could be terminated. The Employment Rights Act 1996 regulates this by saying that employees are entitled to a fair reason before being dismissed, based on their capability to do the job, their conduct, whether their position is economically redundant, on grounds of a statute, or some other substantial reason. It is automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee, regardless of length of service, for becoming pregnant, or for having previously asserted certain specified employment rights. Otherwise, an employee must have worked for two years. This means an employer only terminates an employee's job lawfully if the employer follows a fair procedure, acts reasonably and has a fair reason.

A severance package is pay and benefits that employees may be entitled to receive when they leave employment at a company unwillfully. In addition to their remaining regular pay, it may include some of the following:

Employment Rights Act 1996 United Kingdom Law

The Employment Rights Act 1996 is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament passed by the Conservative government to codify existing law on individual rights in UK labour law.

<i>Jones v Post Office</i>

Jones v Post Office [2001] IRLR 384 is a UK labour law case, under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

<i>Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw</i>

Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw [1940] AC 701 is an important English contract law and company law case. In the field of contracts it is well known for MacKinnon LJ's decision in the Court of Appeal, where he put forth the "officious bystander" formulation for determining what terms should be implied into agreements by the courts. In the field of company law, it is known primarily to stand for the principle that damages may be sought for breach of contract by a director even though a contract may de facto constrain the exercise of powers to sack people found in the company's constitution.

<i>Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corp</i>

Buckland v Bournemouth University [2010] EWCA Civ 121 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.

<i>Igbo v Johnson, Matthey Chemicals Ltd</i>

Igbo v Johnson, Matthey Chemicals Ltd [1986] ICR 505 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Buchan and Ivey v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1997] IRLR 80 is a UK insolvency law and labour law case, concerning the protection of employees' salaries on their employer's insolvency.

An employment contract in English law is a specific kind of contract whereby one person performs work under the direction of another. The two main features of a contract is that work is exchanged for a wage, and that one party stands in a relationship of relative dependence, or inequality of bargaining power. On this basis, statute, and to some extent the common law, requires that compulsory rights are enforceable against the employer.

University of Oxford v Humphreys is a UK employment law case concerning transfers of undertakings, and the job security rights of employees. It is authority for the proposition that, if an employee objects to a proposed change, he or she can be in a good position to claim constructive dismissal.

South African labour law regulates the relationship between employers, employees and trade unions in the Republic of South Africa.

<i>Re Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Re Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd is a 1998 judgment from the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the priority of employees interests when a company declares bankruptcy. The judgment hinged on the interpretation of the Employment Standards Act and has been taken to mark the Supreme Court of Canada's adoption of the purposive approach to legislative interpretation. It has since been frequently cited in subsequent decisions of Canadian courts, nearly every time legislation is interpreted.

Murray v Minister of Defence is an important case in South African labour law. An appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Yekiso J, it was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 18 February 2008. Mpati DP, Cameron JA, Mlambo JA, Combrinck JA and Cachalia JA presided, handing down judgment on 31 March. Counsel for the appellant was KPCO von Lieres und Wilkau SC ; NJ Treurnicht SC appeared for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were Van der Spuy Attorneys, Cape Town, and Hill McHardy & Herbst Ing, Bloemfontein. The respondent was represented by the State Attorney, Cape Town, and the State Attorney, Bloemfontein.

Sindane v Prestige Cleaning Services is an important case in South African law, in the Labour Court, Johannesburg, on August 28, 2009. Basson J presided. David Sindane, bringing an application in terms of section 191(5)(b)(ii) of the Labour Relations Act, appeared for himself; JH de Villiers Botha appeared for the respondent.

In law, wrongful dismissal, also called wrongful termination or wrongful discharge, is a situation in which an employee's contract of employment has been terminated by the employer, where the termination breaches one or more terms of the contract of employment, or a statute provision or rule in employment law. Laws governing wrongful dismissal vary according to the terms of the employment contract, as well as under the laws and public policies of the jurisdiction.

<i>Reda v Flag Ltd</i>

Reda v Flag Ltd [2002] UKPC 38 is a case from Bermuda law, advised upon by the Privy Council, that is relevant for UK labour law and UK company law concerning the dismissal of a director.

<i>Société Générale, London Branch v Geys</i> United Kingdom labour law case

Société Générale, London Branch v Geys [2012] UKSC 63 is a UK labour law case, concerning wrongful dismissal. The Supreme Court's decision was a significant ruling in regard to the competing automatic and elective theories of contractual repudiation.

References

Cases

Statutes

Notes

  1. ↑ Act 66 of 1995.
  2. ↑ Act 61 of 1973.
  3. ↑ [1986] IRLR 215 (CA).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.