2.
Procedure-Information on retrenchment-Selection list
Facts
The applicant was employed on 1 April 1996. He was dismissed on 30 June 2004. The reason for dismissal was operational requirements
of the respondent’s corporation leading to retrenchment. The court heard that the respondent was carrying out a retrenchment
exercise. Members of staff were advised of this exercise and were kept notified about the progress on the exercise. A number of employees
were affected by this exercise. The applicant was one of the affected employees. However the applicant alleged that he was dismissed
based on hatred. He alleged that he had a misunderstanding with one of his supervisors and that it was because of this misunderstanding
that he was dismissed. In court the applicant failed to substantiate this allegation. He made statements based on hearsay. Further
he failed to show that he was the only one targeted for the retrenchment. He failed to explain why out of 600 employees targeted
for retrenchment he was the only one that was chosen based on unfair reasons. He also could not explain the role that his immediate
supervisor played in the selection of employees to be retrenched.
On the other hand the respondent was systematic in his evidence. He explained that after a World Bank funded assessment of the corporations
operations, it became obvious that the respondent had too many employees. That it was necessary to carry out a retrenchment exercise
to reduce staff in order to enhance the corporations operations. Members of staff were made aware of this development. A list of
employees affected by the retrenchment exercise was produced in court as RP2 to show that the applicant was not the only one selected
and that he was not selected for unfair reasons.
The Law
An employer is entitled to terminate services of its employees due to operational requirements of the enterprise, see section 57(1)
Employment Act. In this case the respondent proved on a balance of probabilities that the reason for the termination of the applicant’s
employment was due to retrenchment. This is a valid reason. The process leading to the termination was fair.
Finding
This action has no merit. It is therefore dismissed in its entirety. Any party aggrieved by this decision has the right of appeal
to the High Court within 30 days of this decision. Appeal lies only on matters of law and jurisdiction and not facts: Section 65
(2) of the Labour Relations Act.
.RTF of original document