RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN S.A. EMPLOYMENT LAW

Citation:  [2026] ZALCPE 8 Presiding Judge: Kroon AJ  Court: Labour Court of South Africa at Gqeberha (Port Elizabeth) Nature of the Application and Procedural History [1]–[7] This opposed reinstatement application was set down for 19 February 2026. The Court file was in an untidy and disorganised state, with the majority of documents loose and in no logical order, and had not been indexed and paginated since leave was granted to file further pleadings on 20 November 2025. The Applicant's legal representative was furnished with the Court file to attend to indexing but left the Court building with the entire file, including the "brown cover", without the Registrar's permission or knowledge. When returned at 14h37, the file remained in an unacceptable state with loose pages and unbound documentation. What the Rules Say: Indexing and Removal of Court Records [12]–[14] On indexing: "[12] At Common law, there is an overarching duty on an applicant, as do...

Citation: 2026] ZALCJHB 54 Presiding Judge: Prinsloo J  Court: Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Nature of the Application and Pleadings [1]–[7] The Court emphasised the binding nature of pleadings and the pre-trial minute: "[1] Before I deal with the merits of the case and the evidence adduced, it is necessary to say something about the pleadings filed. It is trite law that the court and the parties are bound by the pleadings and the pre-trial agreement and the issues they agreed to in the pre-trial minute. This Court cannot and should not go beyond the issues it is required to determine, with reference only to the pleadings and the pre-trial minute. [2] Jacob and Goldrein aptly capture the position as follows: 'As the parties are adversaries, it is left to each of them to formulate his case in his own way, subject to the basic rules of pleadings... For the sake of certainty and finality, each party is bound by his own pleading and cannot be allowed to raise a dif...

Citation: (J1014/2024) [2026] ZALCJHB 37 (18 February 2026) Presiding Judge: Engelbrecht AJ Court: Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Nature of the Application [1] The Applicant sought an order that the Respondents be "found guilty of contempt" and incarcerated and/or fined for failing to comply with a certified Arbitration Award of 6 March 2017 ordering the grading progression of Ms Modise from salary level 6 to salary level 7. Factual Matrix [4] On 6 March 2017, the PSCBC issued an Arbitration Award ordering the Department to grade progress Ms Modise. The Department launched a review on 5 June 2017, but it lapsed for failure to prosecute. Ms Modise retired on 31 March 2023, remaining at salary level 6. The Award was certified by the CCMA on 10 June 2024. At no stage did the Department give effect to the Award. Requirements for Contempt [6] The Court applied Fakie NO v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd 2006 (4) SA 326 (SCA): "[6] The leading judgment on contempt of ...

Citation: [2026] ZALCJHB 55 Presiding Judge: Holmes AJ Court: Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Nature of the Application [1] The application concerned the reinstatement of a review application deemed withdrawn in terms of clause 11.2.3 of the Labour Court Practice Manual, owing to the applicant's failure to file the record within sixty days after being notified by the Registrar. Legal Principles: Practice Manual and Reinstatement Test [2]–[5] The Practice Manual supplemented the Rules by prescribing specific time frames. Clause 11.2.3 provided that failure to file a record within sixty days resulted in the application being deemed withdrawn, unless consent for extension was obtained or an application made to the Judge President. [6] The test for reinstatement is akin to condonation, applying the Melane factors. The Court cited Overberg District Municipality v Independent Municipal & Allied Trade Union on behalf of Spangenberg & others: "[31] ... If ...

Citation: [2026] ZALCCT 39 Presiding Judge: De Kock AJ Court: Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town Nature of the Application [1] The Plaintiff filed two statements of claim: (i) case number 2025-107838 (unfair discrimination – victimisation); and (ii) case number 2025-123726 (alleged automatic unfair dismissal). The Defendant filed various applications regarding exceptions and notices to remove causes of complaint. The Plaintiff filed an amended, combined statement of claim without complying with Rule 20 of the 2024 Labour Court Rules. Judicial Analysis [2]–[3] The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the prosecution of the disputes: "[2] The Court must express its dissatisfaction with the manner in which the said two disputes have been prosecuted to date. The Plaintiff, as an unrepresented litigant, filed two statements of claim which fell short of the requirements of Rule 11. In response, the Defendant literally opened the floodgates with various notices of exception...

Citation: [2026] ZALCCT 40 Presiding Judge: Barthus AJ Court: Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town Nature of the Application [1] The Applicant launched an urgent application seeking: (i) a declaration that the Respondents' failure to allocate meaningful duties constituted an ongoing unfair labour practice; (ii) an order directing assignment of substantive duties; (iii) alternatively, placement in a temporary position consistent with his qualifications; and (iv) an interdict restraining adverse treatment. Factual Matrix  [4]–[10] The Applicant was suspended in February 2025 after the Board of the CP Nel Museum became aware of significant financial loss while he was manager. He challenged his suspension at the Bargaining Council; the Arbitrator found the suspension without pay fair. The Applicant launched a review application but subsequently withdrew it. He requested clarity regarding his duties and was notified that his terms remained as communicated on 18 September 2025...

Citation: [2026] ZALCJHB 49 Presiding Judge: Horn AJ Court: Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Nature of the Application [1] This was an application in which the applicant sought to show good cause why a review application ought to be retrieved from the archive and/or reinstated. Factual Matrix [6]–[10] The employees were dismissed following allegations that they misappropriated funds from admission of guilt fines paid by suspects arrested during the COVID-19 lockdown. The suspects paid R2,500 each but received receipts for R1,000 only. The employees contended the applicable fine was R1,000 for failing to confine, not for selling non-essential goods. [9] On 15 October 2021, the commissioner issued an arbitration award finding the dismissals substantively unfair and ordering retrospective reinstatement. [11]–[25] The review application was filed approximately six and a half months late. The record of proceedings remained fatally incomplete at the time of the reinstatem...

Citation: [2026] ZALCD 5 Presiding Judge: Maeso AJ Court: Labour Court of South Africa, Durban Nature of the Application [1] This was an application to review and set aside the award issued by the second respondent (Commissioner Ntombizonke Mbili) in terms of section 145 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995. Factual Matrix [3]–[7] Mr Toffie and Mr Lettman were dismissed on 4 November 2022 after failing a random drug test. Mr Toffie tested positive for THC, cocaine and amphetamine; Mr Lettman tested positive for heroin/morphine and amphetamines. Mr Lettman operated a laser machine and engraving machine requiring close concentration; Mr Toffie operated heavy machinery as a forklift driver lifting loads of 200–500 kilograms. The applicant maintained a zero-tolerance policy regarding narcotics in the workplace. [8]–[9] Prior to the internal enquiry, Mr Toffie pleaded guilty to being under the influence of an intoxicating substance. Mr Lettman pleaded not guilty and pro...

Citation: [2026] ZALCJHB 56 Presiding Judge: Tshisevhe AJ Court: Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Nature of the Application [1] This was an application where the Applicant sought compensation after he was subjected to an occupational detriment for making a protected disclosure in terms of sections 6 and 9 of the Protected Disclosures Act 26 of 2000 (the PDA). Factual Matrix [6]–[14] The Applicant, employed as Producer Marketing since 2021, applied for a position of Events Manager advertised on 27 September 2023 but was not shortlisted. On 11 October 2023, he was told he did not qualify as he only had 2 years of relevant experience. He took his CV to Ms Kathy Govender, who agreed he qualified but indicated that Mr Gareth Kaschule, the Regional Marketing Manager, did not want him appointed as he preferred someone with Theatre experience. [9]–[12] On 21 December 2023, the Applicant lodged a grievance against Mr Kaschule for unfair labour practice. At the grievance heari...