RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN S.A. EMPLOYMENT LAW

Seat of Court: The Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town Date Delivered: 10 April 2026 Factual Summary:  The Applicant applied for leave to appeal against a judgment of this Court dated 14 October 2025, which dismissed his application to review and set aside an arbitration award of Commissioner JP Hanekom. The award, issued on 7 February 2024 under the auspices of the National Bargaining Council for the Private Security Sector, upheld the substantive and procedural fairness of the Applicant's dismissal by the Third Respondent (Atcoglo). The Applicant's submissions in support of the application for leave to appeal were filed late, and he sought condonation for such delay. The application for leave to appeal was opposed by the Third Respondent. Legal Questions Considered: 1. The test for granting leave to appeal: "Section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act provides that leave to appeal may only be granted where the judge is of the opinion that the appeal would have a...

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...