Posts

Kongo v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration & others [2026] ZALCCT 185

By
Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 22 October 2026, Labour Court, Cape Town Case No: C93/2024 Name of Judge(s): Lagrange J Summary of Factual Matrix: The applicant, a senior Human Resources Business Partner at the South African Rugby Union, had a long-running conflict with her manager. After her grievance against the manager was dismissed in 2022, she was suspended and charged with making unfounded allegations. From August 2022 she was booked off work with a major depressive episode attributed to these workplace stressors and was briefly hospitalised. Her psychiatrist and occupational therapist reported temporary but total incapacity, a guarded prognosis and a reassessment after twelve weeks. SARU conducted a written incapacity enquiry before an external chairperson and dismissed her with effect from 31 December 2022. A CCMA arbitrator found the dismissal substantively and procedurally fair. The applicant applied under section 145 of the LRA to review the award, contending that t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Benteler South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Busakwe & others (Application for Leave to Appeal) [2026] ZALCPE 27

By
Seat of Court: Labour Court, Gqeberha (Port Elizabeth) Date Delivered: 20 October 2026 Case No: PR177/22 Name of Judge(s): Kroon AJ Factual Summary: The Court had dismissed, with costs on the attorney and client scale, the employer's application to reinstate a lapsed review application against a bargaining council award in favour of an AMCU member, Mr Langbooi. It had found that the review had itself been launched substantially out of time without any condonation application, and that the employer's attorneys had been grossly negligent in leaving the supervision of the matter to secretaries operating an administrative 'system'. The employer applied for leave to appeal by way of a twenty-page notice which repeated its earlier heads of argument verbatim, again prayed for reinstatement, and repeatedly accused the Court of actual bias: that it had tried to persuade the employer to abandon the application, relied on evidence from a contempt application, determined the re...
Post a Comment
Read more

BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v Tshoba [2026] ZALCCT 184

By
Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 20 October 2026, Labour Court, Cape Town Case No: 2025-121021 Name of Judge(s): May AJ Summary of Factual Matrix: The respondent, an unrepresented former employee dismissed for operational requirements, referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the Labour Court in July 2025 after conciliation failed. The employer filed its statement of response, a pre-trial conference was held on 21 October 2025, and a draft pre-trial minute was sent to the respondent. Despite repeated reminders, including a warning of the archiving provisions of rule 69(2)(b), the respondent never returned a signed minute or took any further step. The employer applied under rule 41 of the Labour Court Rules (which replaced the former rule 11) for the dismissal of the referral for want of prosecution. The respondent, though aware of the hearing, neither opposed the application nor appeared, and the matter proceeded unopposed. The issue was whether the Court should dismiss the refe...
Post a Comment
Read more

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa & others v Allens Meshco (Pty) Ltd [2026] ZALCCT 183

By
Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 20 October 2026, Labour Court, Cape Town Case No: C291/2024 Name of Judge(s): Lagrange J Summary of Factual Matrix: After the employer informed NUMSA that it intended to apply to the bargaining council for an exemption permitting it to pay only half of the December 2023 leave enhancement pay, day-shift employees embarked on an unprocedural work stoppage on 25 October 2023, joined later by the night shift. Over three days management issued several written notices and ultimatums, which were read out to the strikers and emailed to the union, and met the union official on 26 October. On 27 and 30 October each striker was asked individually whether he would return to work or take his dismissal papers, and those who refused were dismissed without any disciplinary hearing. NUMSA and 21 dismissed employees referred an unfair dismissal claim to the Labour Court, seeking retrospective reinstatement or compensation. They contended that the strike had been ...
Post a Comment
Read more

South Ocean Electric Wire (Pty) Ltd v NUMSA obo Ntsoana & others [2026] ZALCJHB 393

By
Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 19 October 2026, Labour Court, Johannesburg Case No: JR2335/23 Name of Judge(s): Motshekga AJ Summary of Factual Matrix: The employee, an extrusion machine operator, had committed to a weekend overtime shift during which a trial run was being conducted on his machine. When his request for a pass-out to leave early for personal errands was refused, because pass-outs were reserved for emergencies, he changed out of his protective clothing, shouted at and pointed his finger at his team leader in the office and on the shop floor in front of other operators, rebuffed a second team leader and declared that he would leave with or without permission; the production manager eventually issued a pass-out to defuse the situation. He was charged with gross insubordination, as defined in the employer's disciplinary code, and dismissed. The bargaining council commissioner held that insubordination required proof of the refusal of a lawful instruction, foun...
Post a Comment
Read more

Sirchia v Mathebula N.O & others [2026] ZALCJHB 394

By
Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 16 October 2026, Labour Court, Johannesburg Case No: JR1229/23 Name of Judge(s): Motshekga AJ Summary of Factual Matrix: The applicant, a customer support representative, was dismissed by Safintra on 2 March 2023 for gross insubordination and gross dishonesty after defying an instruction to cancel previously approved annual leave so as to attend SAP training, and rearranging her training sessions herself. Her unfair dismissal referral reached the CCMA 15 days late; she explained that an error in her attorneys' office had misrecorded her email address until 28 March 2023 and that her representative was then ill from 11 to 17 April 2023. On the papers, the commissioner refused condonation, finding the explanation unreasonable because the attorneys could have referred the dispute regardless, that she had no prospects because she had merely labelled the dismissal automatically unfair, and that the employer would be prejudiced by having to defend...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ngoy v Commission Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration & others [2026] ZALCJHB 385

By
Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 16 October 2026, Labour Court, Johannesburg Case No: 2025-126956 Name of Judge(s): Mohlahlo AJ Summary of Factual Matrix: The applicant referred an unfair dismissal dispute against his former employer to the CCMA. Neither party attended the arbitration on 3 April 2025 and the commissioner dismissed the matter under section 138(5) of the LRA. The applicant applied for rescission, stating that he had not received the notice of set-down, which had been served on his attorney, who was ill on the day; the employer did not oppose. The commissioner refused rescission, finding that the attorney had received the notice and had neither informed the CCMA of his illness nor produced a medical certificate, that the CCMA had notified the applicant by SMS, and that the applicant was in wilful default; he also found that the CCMA was prejudiced by unnecessary delay. The applicant applied, unopposed, to review the ruling on the ground that the commissioner had f...
Post a Comment
Read more

Moiloa v Cross Border Roads Transport Agency (CBRTA) & others [2026] ZALAC 45

By
Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 16 October 2026, Labour Appeal Court Case No: A2026/014274 Name of Judge(s): Moshoana AJA (Mahalelo ADJP concurring; Gqamana AJA concurring in a separate judgment) Summary of Factual Matrix: The appellant was appointed by the Cross-Border Road Transport Agency in 2010 and again in 2011 on the strength of a BCom degree conferred by UNISA in 2004, which UNISA withdrew in 2013 on account of irregular invigilation. He was later charged with misrepresenting his qualifications, but the chairperson of the disciplinary enquiry acquitted him on that charge and dismissed him instead for failing to declare an interest in a company. A CCMA commissioner found the dismissal unfair and ordered his reinstatement. The Agency then approached the Labour Court for a declarator and a legality review under section 158(1)(h) of the LRA setting aside the appellant's appointments and employment contracts as void ab initio, together with a review of the chairperson...
Post a Comment
Read more

Motjamela v South African Local Government Bargaining Council & others [2026] ZALCJHB 391

By
Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 15 October 2026, Labour Court, Johannesburg Case No: 2026-188605 Name of Judge(s): Gandidze J Summary of Factual Matrix: The applicant, a former fixed-term employee of George Local Municipality, pursued a dispute at the bargaining council under section 198B of the LRA seeking to be deemed permanently employed. After unsuccessful interlocutory skirmishes and a first urgent application in this Court that was struck from the roll for non-appearance, the council arbitrator on 30 July 2026, in the applicant's absence, dismissed the claim as moot because the fixed-term contracts had expired; a separate unfair dismissal dispute was later set down for 15 October 2026. On 22 September 2026 the applicant brought an 'urgent' application to review the 30 July ruling and to stay the 15 October arbitration, alternatively for case-management directions, with a union official, Mr Thabang Motjamela, purporting to represent him. The municipality oppos...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mzuzu v City of Cape Town & others [2026] ZALCCT 182

By
Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 15 October 2026, Labour Court, Cape Town Case No: C297/2024 Name of Judge(s): Motshekga AJ Summary of Factual Matrix: The applicant, an operational supervisor in the City's Urban Waste Management directorate, owned a property at which the City's revenue protection officials found in November 2020 that the prepaid electricity meter had been bypassed internally. He maintained that he had never lived there, that a cousin had occupied it until August 2020 and his daughter's family thereafter, and that he had reported what he believed to be a fault. He was charged with gross dishonesty in relation to the tampered meter and dismissed in November 2023. The bargaining council commissioner found that by August 2020 the applicant knew that the meter was not recording consumption, that he had not reported it, and that he was complicit in the taking of the City's electricity; the dismissal was held to be fair. The applicant applied, one day ...
Post a Comment
Read more