|
''SA Post Office Ltd v Mampeule'' is an important case in South African labour law, heard in the Labour Court. == 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〔Act 66 of 1995.〕 (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: # automatically upon expiry of the five-year period; # incapacity resulting from poor work performance or ill-health; # misconduct; or # 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,〔Act 61 of 1973.〕 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. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「SA Post Office v Mampeule」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|