The first respondent (Meyer) was employed by the appellant (Total South Africa) from 1 May 1987 as an Assistant Accountant, later becoming Treasury Accountant. From 1993 he was seconded to Total Coal South Africa (TCSA), a subsidiary company. In December 2013 it was announced that TCSA would be sold to Exxaro. Meyer raised concerns about his employment status. Despite assurances that Total would find him a position, on 20 November 2014 Total informed Meyer he would be retrenched due to no suitable vacancies. The consultation meeting lasted only 20 minutes. Meyer requested post-retirement medical benefits (PRMB) which Total had granted to nine employees retrenched in 2010 who met certain criteria (employed before 31 December 2001, medical aid members, and at least 50 years old at retrenchment). Meyer met all these criteria but Total refused to extend PRMB to him, only offering two years' worth of PRMB in his severance package. His retrenchment became effective on 31 December 2014. Meyer secured new employment with TCSA from 1 January 2015 but without recognition of his previous service or PRMB benefits. Total paid him a severance package of R2.9 million.
The appeal succeeded in part. The arbitration award was reviewed and set aside. The dismissal was found substantively and procedurally unfair. Total committed an unfair labour practice by refusing PRMB. The compensation award was reduced from 12 months to 6 months' remuneration. Total was ordered to provide PRMB to Meyer effective from dismissal, with entitlement to set off amounts already paid for this benefit. Total was ordered to pay Meyer's costs of the appeal. No order as to costs in the court a quo.
1. Compensation awarded under s193(1)(c) and s194 of the LRA constitutes a solatium for impairment of employee dignity resulting from unfair dismissal, not compensation for patrimonial loss. 2. However, factors such as substantial severance packages exceeding statutory requirements and immediate re-employment should be considered when determining 'just and equitable' compensation, and may justify a reduction from the maximum 12 months. 3. Under s186(2)(a) of the LRA, 'benefits' include advantages granted pursuant to employer policy or practice subject to discretion (Apollo Tyres). 4. Where an employee establishes prima facie unfair differentiation in the provision of benefits by showing similar circumstances to other employees who received the benefit, the onus shifts to the employer to provide objective, rational and fair justification for the differential treatment. 5. Failure to provide such justification renders the employer's conduct arbitrary, capricious and inconsistent, constituting an unfair labour practice.
The Court noted that the case did not involve egregious conduct by the employer that would justify a maximum compensation award. The Court observed that the manner of Meyer's treatment and breaches of important LRA provisions regarding retrenchment justified an award of compensation, but the quantum had to be moderated in light of all circumstances. The Court also remarked that Total, as a large and powerful employer with resources to ensure human relations management congruent with LRA objectives, had failed in its obligations. The judgment noted that Total's witness Khumalo was not in a position to provide concrete evidence about the 2010 retrenchment exercise as he was not part of the HR team at that time, highlighting the evidential deficiency in Total's case.
This case is significant for clarifying the principles governing compensation awards for unfair dismissal under the LRA. It reinforces the principle established in Johnson and Johnson that compensation under s193(1)(c) is a solatium for breach of dignity rights rather than patrimonial loss, but recognizes that factors such as substantial severance packages and immediate re-employment should be considered when determining what is 'just and equitable'. The judgment also provides important guidance on unfair labour practices relating to benefits under s186(2)(a), confirming that employers must provide objective, rational and fair justification for differential treatment of employees regarding discretionary benefits. The case demonstrates that inconsistent application of employer policies, particularly regarding post-retirement benefits, can constitute unfair labour practices where no rational basis for differentiation is established. The judgment emphasizes the importance of proper consultation procedures in retrenchment and the employer's burden to justify differential treatment once prima facie unfairness is established.
Explore 1 related case • Click to navigate