Johannesburg — THE Chemical, Energy, Paper, Printing, Wood and Allied Workers' Union has taken Republican Press to the Constitutional Court to contest a Supreme Court of Appeal ruling that said workers who had been retrenched for more than five years could not be reinstated.

"This is the first case where the Constitutional Court will be called upon to rule upon the impact an unfair dismissal has upon the dignity of the person dismissed and, in that light, determining the appropriate redress, which the applicants contend should be reinstatement," union national legal officer Themba Buthelezi said.

Republican Press dismissed about 150 workers in September 1999 after the company purchased a printing press. The union contested the fairness of its members' dismissal and referred the dispute to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration.

When conciliation failed, the union filed a statement of claim in the Labour Court.

The Labour Court found that 40 of the employees had been unfairly selected for retrenchment and that the union members' services could have been retained. It also found that in many cases the wrong people were selected for retrenchment.

The court ordered that 28 of the workers be reinstated with effect from September 1999, subject to the deduction from their back pay of an amount equivalent to two-and-a-half years' wages and of the notice and severance pay that they had received.

It also ordered that seven of the workers be paid compensation equivalent to 12 months' pay and that the estates of five workers who had died be paid the same compensation.

The Labour Court refused the company leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court. The company then went to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which set aside the decision.

The appeal court said the passage of six years from dismissal was sufficient in itself for the court to find that it was not reasonably practicable to reinstate or re-employ the workers. The appeal court said they should be compensated only for their unfair dismissal, and that should be limited to 12 months' remuneration.

The lawyers representing the workers said their clients were upset by the appeal court judgment, and to hear that instead of receiving about R133000 in back pay each and a job eight years later, they were now to receive only about R30000 each.