National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Another v Denel Soc Ltd [2026] ZALCJHB 33

Court: Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg

Judge: Gandidze J

Date of Delivery: 16 February 2026

Factual Matrix

Two employees of Denel SOC Ltd, employed as Category Specialists in Procurement, were suspended and faced a disciplinary hearing. They were notified that external attorneys (MNS Attorneys and MBA Inc Attorneys) would initiate and chair the hearing. NUMSA, representing the employees, contended that the Disciplinary Code, incorporated into their employment contracts, did not permit external chairpersons or initiators. The employer refused to provide an undertaking to appoint internal persons. The applicants sought urgent declaratory and interdictory relief.

Reasoning for the Finding

"[13] I disagree that an alleged breach of contract claim is a right under the Labour Relations Act, as submitted by the respondent... 'if non-compliance with the LRA is not relied on, an employee can pursue a contractual claim if a contractual remedy is sought.'" [para 13, quoting Ngoye]

"[21] The Letter of Appointment includes this provision: '10. DISCIPLINARY CODE AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES The Disciplinary Code and Grievance Procedure forms part of these Conditions of Service...'" [para 21]

"[26] [The applicants submitted that] 'The policy neither explicitly and/ or implicitly permit the appointment of an external initiator, or an external chairperson. Nor does it give the respondent the discretion to do so unilaterally in respect of internal disciplinary inquiries.'" [para 26]

"[27] That submission is reiterated in the applicants' heads of argument. Given this, the inquiry into whether the applicants have a clear right to the relief they seek must conclude. If, according to his own version, the Disciplinary Code is silent on the matter, there can be no question of a breach of the employment contract in appointing an external chairperson to oversee the disciplinary hearing and an external person to initiate proceedings." [para 27]

"[29] Therefore, in Vorster, the Court held that the employer had to be bound by what it had agreed to in the Disciplinary Code, and not by what the Disciplinary Code was silent on." [para 29]

"[37] Even if the applicants are correct that the practice has been to appoint internal chairpersons and initiators, the claim before the Court concerns an alleged breach of contract. Unless the applicants point to the contractual provision that has been breached, the claim must fail." [para 37]

Finding/Order

1. The application was dismissed.

2. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs.

The Court held that the applicants failed to establish a clear right because the Disciplinary Code did not expressly prohibit the appointment of external chairpersons or initiators; silence in the contract could not found a breach of contract claim.