RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN S.A. EMPLOYMENT LAW

Seat of Court: The Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town Date Delivered: 8 April 2026 Factual Summary:  The Applicant was employed as a store manager at the Respondent's Cavendish Square outlet from 11 November 2019. Her contractual salary was R10,000 per month. In July 2020, the parties agreed to a 25% salary reduction until the ban on international travel was lifted and business resumed normal operations. The travel ban was lifted on 1 October 2020, but salaries were not restored to pre-COVID-19 levels. In early March 2023, the Applicant informed the Respondent she was pregnant with a high-risk pregnancy. Medical practitioners advised she should perform light duties and not lift heavy objects. The Applicant alleges she was pressured to perform unsafe tasks, that her grievance was not processed, and that an incapacity hearing was conducted unfairly. On 4 May 2023, she was placed on unpaid leave. On 21 July 2023, she resigned, alleging the Respondent had made continued employme...

Seat of Court: The Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Date Delivered: 1 April 2026 Factual Summary:  The Plaintiffs, six permanent employees of the Defendant (a non-profit healthcare organisation), were retrenched following a section 189 process initiated on the basis of alleged operational requirements, specifically a reduction in donor funding from USAID for the APACE programme. On 22 July 2022, the Defendant issued a section 189(3) notice indicating that 101 employees might be retrenched. The Defendant proposed a "re-competition" process as the selection criterion, requiring affected employees to apply and compete for reduced positions. The Plaintiffs contended that the dismissals were substantively unfair because: (i) the Defendant failed to establish a fair and rational basis for retrenchment; (ii) it did not genuinely consult on alternatives to avoid retrenchment; (iii) it failed to properly consider or offer reasonable alternatives; and (iv) it applied unfair...

Seat of Court: The Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Date Delivered: 7 April 2026 Factual Summary:  The Second Respondent (SARS) sought leave to appeal against a judgment of this Court in which it was partially successful and partially unsuccessful in opposing a review application brought by the Applicant. The underlying dispute concerned a review of an arbitration award, though the specific factual matrix of the underlying dispute is not elaborated upon in the judgment regarding leave to appeal. Legal Questions Considered: 1. The test for granting leave to appeal: "The traditional formulation of the test that is applicable in an application such as the present requires the court to determine whether there is a reasonable prospect that another court may come to a different conclusion to that reached in the judgment that is sought to be taken on appeal." [para 5] "The use of the word 'would' in s17(1)(a)(i) is indicative of a raising of the threshold...

Seat of Court: The Labour Appeal Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Date Delivered: 31 March 2026 Factual Summary:  The Appellant, UPN, is the logistics arm of Woolworths. On 12 October 2015, the trade union called a protected strike. On 19 October 2015, the Appellant obtained an interdict against the union and its members. Approximately 256 employees were charged with misconduct allegedly committed between 20 and 27 October 2015. Twenty-three disciplinary enquiries were conducted; almost all employees were found guilty and dismissed on 28 December 2015. The trade union referred the dispute to the CCMA. Commissioner Mbatsana, in an award dated 12 June 2020, found the dismissals substantively fair but procedurally unfair, awarding one month's remuneration as compensation. The trade union successfully reviewed the award in the Labour Court, which found the dismissals substantively unfair and ordered reinstatement and compensation. The Appellant appealed to the Labour Appeal Court....

Seat of Court: The Labour Court of South Africa at Cape Town Date Delivered: 8 April 2026 Factual Summary:  The Applicant filed a statement of claim alleging harassment, victimisation, unilateral changes to work conditions, breach of the equal work equal pay principle, and discrimination by the Respondents. The Respondents opposed the application and, on 23 March 2022, raised an exception to the statement of claim on the basis that it was vague and embarrassing. In response, the Applicant filed an irregular step application pursuant to the Court Rules, contending that the Respondents' exception was erroneously founded upon Rule 18 of the Uniform Rules of Court rather than Rule 6 of the Labour Court Rules. Legal Questions Considered: 1. Whether the exception was properly founded upon the Uniform Rules rather than the Labour Court Rules: "Whether or not the respondent's statement of claim is excipiable is to be determined by reference to rule 6 of the rules of this cour...

Seat of the Court: The Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town Presiding Judge: De Kock, AJ (Acting Judge) Summary of the Basis of the Claim The Applicants, Solidarity and three former employees of Tsebo Facilities Solutions (Pty) Ltd, sought review and setting aside of an arbitration award by Commissioner Reza Slamang. The Commissioner had found that the Applicants had forfeited their entitlement to severance pay in terms of section 41(4) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 ("BCEA") on the basis that Tsebo had "arranged" their alternative employment with Excellerate Facilities Management (Pty) Ltd (CBRE), the incoming service provider at the Sanlam contract. The Applicants contended that they had secured employment with CBRE independently, through their own efforts and applications, prior to the conclusion of any Alternative Employment Agreement ("AEA") between Tsebo and CBRE, and therefore did not forfeit their statutory entitlement to s...

Seat of the Court: The Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town Presiding Judge: Lagrange, J Summary of the Basis of the Claim The Applicant, Mr Mbulelo Memani, Municipal Manager of Bitou Local Municipality, brought an urgent application seeking: (i) a declaration that his precautionary suspension had automatically lapsed in terms of Regulation 6(6)(a) of the Local Government: Disciplinary Regulations for Senior Managers, 2011 ("the Regulations"), because the disciplinary hearing had not commenced within three months of the resolution to institute disciplinary action; (ii) his reinstatement; and (iii) an interdict restraining the continuation of the disciplinary enquiry pending the determination of a review application. The First Respondent, Mr S Mketsu, was the chairperson of the disciplinary enquiry. The Applicant contended that because the charges had not been read out when the enquiry first convened on 12 November 2025 (the date falling within the three-month window), the ...

Seat of the Court: The Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town Presiding Judge: Lagrange, J Summary of the Basis of the Claim The Applicant, Mr Mbulelo Memani, Municipal Manager of Bitou Local Municipality, brought an urgent application seeking: (i) a declaration that his precautionary suspension had automatically lapsed in terms of Regulation 6(6)(a) of the Local Government: Disciplinary Regulations for Senior Managers, 2011 ("the Regulations"), because the disciplinary hearing had not commenced within three months of the resolution to institute disciplinary action; (ii) his reinstatement; and (iii) an interdict restraining the continuation of the disciplinary enquiry pending the determination of a review application. The First Respondent, Mr S Mketsu, was the chairperson of the disciplinary enquiry. The Applicant contended that because the charges had not been read out when the enquiry first convened on 12 November 2025 (the date falling within the three-month window), the ...

Seat of the Court: The Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town Presiding Judg: Gandidze, J Summary of the Basis of the Claim The Applicant, Erarite (Pty) Ltd trading as Khayelitsha Superspar, sought review and setting aside of an arbitration award wherein Commissioner Gogo found that the dismissal of Mr Cludious Gogo (Third Respondent), a Zimbabwean national employed as Bakery Manager, was substantively unfair. Mr Gogo had been dismissed after posting a biblical verse from Deuteronomy on his WhatsApp status (both personal and a management group) during a period of heightened xenophobic tensions at the workplace. The Commissioner found that while the post was provocative and a grave error of judgment, it did not constitute hate speech or incitement to violence, and that a final written warning would have been an appropriate sanction. Analysis and Findings of the Court with Direct Quotations On the Gravity of the Misconduct and the Commissioner's Understanding  "[31] I begin the...