Deepening Democracy through Access to Information
Home / Press Office / Other Briefs RSS ← Back
Johannesburg|Cleaning|Enlightened Security|JMPD|SECURITY|Sihlangene|Cleaning|Security Services|Services|Tracy Robbins

Email this article

separate emails by commas, maximum limit of 4 addresses

Verification Image. Please refresh the page if you cannot see this image.

Sponsored by


Article Enquiry

Labour Court Hits Employers Where it Hurts

Verification Image. Please refresh the page if you cannot see this image.

Embed Video

Labour Court Hits Employers Where it Hurts

17th May 2018


Font size: -+

27 March 2018, the Labour Court delivered its judgment in the matter of SATAWU and Others v Sihlangene Security & Cleaning CC and Another (Case No: JS 79/11), whereby the court showed its displeasure for a complete absence of prior procedure followed when dismissing employees.

In casu, Sihlangene Security and Cleaning CC (Sihlangene) employed the applicants as security officers. Sihlangene was contracted to provide security services to the JMPD. The applicants were employed as security officers at the JMPD's Region C in Roodepoort.


In August 2010, the JMPD terminated its contract with Sihlangene. The JMPD subsequently contracted with Enlightened Security Force (Pty) Ltd (Enlightened Security) to provide the security services.

On Monday, 31 August 2010, the applicants presented themselves for work as usual. However, they happened upon new personnel wearing security uniforms. Upon questioning, it transpired the new personnel were employees of Enlightened Security, who had taken over Sihlangene's contract with the JMPD.


The applicants were not permitted to provide their services to Sihlangene on 31 August 2010 and were effectively dismissed on that day, without receiving a written notice of termination of their employment, notice pay or severance pay.

The applicants' claims of unfair dismissal arose from, inter alia, a complete lack of procedure implemented by Sihlangene in effecting their dismissals.

The court was scornful of Sihlangene, describing its conduct towards the applicants as egregious. The court scolded Sihlangene for attempting to justify the applicants’ dismissals on operational grounds but failing to follow any procedure and failing to provide notice of its intention to terminate the employees' services.

The court awarded each employee the maximum award of 12 months' compensation and, as another blow to Sihlangene, awarded costs as well.

This judgment offers a stern reminder to employers to ensure that dismissals are effected not only for a fair reason, but also in accordance with a fair procedure. Failure to do so may result in a hefty compensation award coupled with a cost order.

Written by Tracy Robbins, Associate, Employment and Compensation Practice, Baker McKenzie Johannesburg


To subscribe email or click here
To advertise email or click here

Comment Guidelines

About is a product of Creamer Media.

Other Creamer Media Products include:
Engineering News
Mining Weekly
Research Channel Africa

Read more


We offer a variety of subscriptions to our Magazine, Website, PDF Reports and our photo library.

Subscriptions are available via the Creamer Media Store.

View store


Advertising on is an effective way to build and consolidate a company's profile among clients and prospective clients. Email

View options
Free daily email newsletter Register Now