Read the following case study and answer the question that follows.

Retrenchments at Italian Quality Tiles

Italian Quality Tiles $($or IQ Tiles as it is commonly known$)$ suffered a major downturn in profitability because of low$-$cost imported tiles becoming increasingly available in South Africa. The company also found that its traditional plant that used to manufacture wall tiles was outdated and inefficient. It$,$ therefore, took a decision to upgrade its other manufacturing facility by installing a highly sophisticated and mechanised production line and to close down the traditional plant completely.

The Building, Construction and Allied Workers Union $($BCAWU$)$ represented $80\%$ of the IQ Tiles employees. A further $2\%$ of the employees were represented by the United Peoples Union of South Africa $($UPUSA$).$ BCAWU was the recognised trade union and had concluded both a collective agreement and an agency shop agreement with the company. BCAWU bargained collectively with the company on behalf of all employees in the bargaining unit, including UPUSA members.

The company notified all employees of the imminent retrenchments by attaching letters to their payslips and by posting notices on notice boards. The company also commenced a process of consultation with BCAWU. All employees were further advised that they could approach management individually if they had any enquiries or they could attend the general meetings held. None of the employees made use of these invitations.

The company had discussions with BCAWU about all necessary topics related to the retrenchment process, as mandated by the law. Furthermore, the company reached a written agreement with BCAWU regarding the retrenchment process, which involved laying off a total of $165$ employees across all levels and departments. The selection of employees for retrenchment was to be based on the entire operation as a whole.

It was specifically agreed that the selection criteria to be applied were to be the following

$($in order of importance$)$:

$(1)$ key positions requiring scarce skills

$(2)$ education levels

$(3)$ the last$-$in$-$first$-$out $($LIFO$)$ principle

The company did not consult with UPUSA because it had concluded a collective agreement with BCAWU. It advised UPUSA in writing that its position was that it had no legal obligation to consult with UPUSA in view of the collective agreement.

John Ngoka was one of the employees identified for retrenchment. He was neither in a key position, nor did he possess any scarce skills. In addition, he only had a Grade $10$ certificate and no further qualifications. He had, however, been with the company for $15$ years and had an impeccable disciplinary record.

John was a member of UPUSA and argued that, should he be dismissed, his dismissal would be unfair as his trade union had not been consulted. He also argued that there were employees with fewer years$$ service who would not be retrenched.

Source: Adapted from Maluleke and Others v Johnson Tiles $($Pty$)$ Ltd $($unreported case no JS$693/00$ of $18$ April $2008)$ in Grogan, J$,$ Jordaan, B$,$ Maserumule, P & Stelzner, S$.2008.$ Juta$$s annual labour law update. Cape Town: Juta, pp $4042.$

According to the Labour Relations Act $66$ of $1995($LRA$),$ there are three grounds on which an employee can be dismissed. On which ground will John be dismissed?

Select one:

operational requirements

economic requirements

incapacity

misconduct