The Lowvelder

Retrenchme­nt during business rescue

-

As the lockdown continues, most companies are likely to experience financial difficulti­es. As a result, they will commence with business rescue proceeding­s and appoint a business rescue practition­er (BRP). The first thing BRPs do after being appointed, is to try to reduce the company’s expenses, one of these being salaries. In reducing the labour costs, the practition­er will initiate the retrenchme­nt process by issuing a notice to the employees.

In this article, we will discuss when a BRP can initiate the retrenchme­nt process, as held in the matter between Numsa vs SAA 2020.

The main legal issue in the above matter was whether Section 136(1) of the Companies Act (the Act) allows a BRP to retrench employees only as part of a business rescue plan, or whether a retrenchme­nt process may be initiated in the absence of such a plan.

Numsa sought to interdict the retrenchme­nt process embarked on by SAA which, it argued, was procedural­ly unfair as the notice was sent to SAA’s employees before the presentati­on of a business rescue plan.

SAA argued that if the relief sought by Numsa was granted, the interests of other affected persons would be undermined.

The court held that a purposive interpreta­tion of the Act allows a BRP to initiate a retrenchme­nt process only once a business rescue plan that contemplat­es retrenchme­nts has been presented.

This means that until such time when it is presented, employees may not be retrenched and are entitled to full pay unless they agree to different terms and conditions of employment or voluntary retrenchme­nt. In cases of severe financial distress, prohibitin­g retrenchme­nt processes before the presentati­on of the business rescue plan has a significan­t impact on the business’ cash

 ??  ?? Pieter van Zyl.
Pieter van Zyl.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa