RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN S.A. EMPLOYMENT LAW

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...

Seat of the Court: The Labour Appeal Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Presiding Judges: Van Niekerk JA, Chetty AJA and Kganyago AJA (Judgment delivered by Chetty AJA) Summary of the Basis of the Claim The Appellant, AMCU on behalf of Mr Otshepeng Kgotlang, appealed against a decision of the Labour Court (Manchu AJ) which dismissed a review application challenging an arbitration award that had confirmed the substantive fairness of Mr Kgotlang's dismissal. Mr Kgotlang, a part-time shop steward and branch secretary of AMCU at Siyanda Bakgatla Platinum Mine, was dismissed following a disciplinary hearing in which he was found guilty of gross insubordination (for refusing to obey lawful instructions to report for underground duties) and clocking fraud (for clocking in without reporting for duty). He contended that a "gentleman's agreement" exempted shop stewards from reporting underground, and that procedural requirements for transfer to underground duties had not been ...

Seat of the Court: The Labour Appeal Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Presiding Judges: Nkutha-Nkontwana JA, Davis AJA and Musi AJA (Judgment delivered by Davis AJA) Summary of the Basis of the Claim The Appellant, Arcelormittal South Africa Limited, appealed against a judgment of the Labour Court (Erasmus AJ) which dismissed its application to review and set aside a designation ruling of the Essential Services Committee ("ESC"). The ESC had determined that the blast furnace and coke battery operations at the Appellant's steel plant did not constitute "essential services" as defined in section 213 of the LRA. The Appellant contended that interruption of these operations would endanger the life, personal safety or health of its employees during the requisite shutdown procedures, and therefore sought a declaration that these operations be designated as essential services to limit the right to strike in those areas. Analysis and Findings of the Court with Direct...

2. Seat of the Court The Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town 3. Presiding Judge: De Kock, AJ (Acting Judge) 4. Summary of the Basis of the Claim The Applicant, Ms Vanessa Adams, referred a dispute to the Labour Court seeking declaratory relief that she was an employee of the Fourth Respondent (Western Cape Government Department of Cultural Affairs and Sport) in terms of section 200A of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 ("the LRA"); that she was unfairly dismissed in terms of section 185(a) of the LRA; and that she be awarded appropriate relief in terms of section 193(1) of the LRA. The Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents raised preliminary objections on the grounds that: (i) the Applicant ought to have referred the unfair dismissal dispute to the relevant bargaining council before approaching the Labour Court; and (ii) the Applicant was an independent contractor contracted by the Third Respondent (Quantum Leap Consulting (Pty) Ltd) and not an employee of the State. 5. A...

Citation: [2026] ZALCCT 45 Court: Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town A. Nature of Proceedings This was an application brought in terms of section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 ("the Act"), seeking an order placing the judgment of Bosch AJ, delivered on 29 September 2025 under case number 2025-048772, into operation and execution notwithstanding the Respondent's pending Petition for Leave to Appeal to the Labour Appeal Court. B. Background Chronology 1. The Applicant was employed as a Maintenance Fitter at the Respondent's processing plant in Worcester. On 7 January 2013, he was dismissed for alleged dishonesty arising from clocking offences. 2. On 17 June 2013, a CCMA commissioner found the dismissal unfair and ordered reinstatement with effect from the date of dismissal, together with backpay of R120,075.24. 3. The Applicant reported for duty on 8 July 2013 but was sent home. The Respondent launched a review application and obtained a stay of execu...

Citation: [2026] ZALCCT 44  Court: Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town A. Nature of Proceedings This was an application for default judgment pursuant to a statement of claim delivered by the Applicant acting "in person"  following prior proceedings before the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration ("CCMA"). B. Material Facts 1. The dispute concerned the Applicant's dismissal for operational requirements. 2. The Applicant referred the dispute to the Labour Court in terms of section 191(5)(b)(ii) of the LRA. 3. The referral to the CCMA was made on 18 June 2024; conciliation was held on 11 July 2024; the Applicant elected arbitration, which was held on 23 September 2025. 4. Commissioner Martin Rabie, on 29 September 2025, ruled that section 191(12) of the LRA did not apply where an employer dismissed more than one employee within a 12-month period with a workforce exceeding 10 employees, and accordingly held the CCMA lacked jurisdiction, affordi...

Citation: [2026] ZALCCT 46 Court: Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town A. Nature of Proceedings This was an unopposed application brought before the Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town, for the review and setting aside of an arbitration award wherein the second respondent (the arbitrator) refused an application for condonation made by the Applicant. B. Material Facts 1. The Applicant referred a dispute to the First Respondent on 27 June 2024, alleging dismissal on that same date for reasons unknown to her. 2. The matter was scheduled for conciliation/arbitration ("con/arb") on 26 July 2024. No objection having been received, Commissioner Reagan Jacobs proceeded in default. 3. During evidence, it emerged that the actual date of dismissal was 15 January 2024, not 27 June 2024 as averred. Commissioner Jacobs accordingly ruled on 2 August 2024 that the referral was filed outside the time prescribed by section 191(1)(b)(ii) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 ("the ...