RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN S.A. EMPLOYMENT LAW

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 10 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Name of Judge(s): Collis AJ Summary of Factual Matrix:  Harmony launched an application to review an arbitration award issued by the CCMA under case number FSW 2381-21. On 15 May 2023, Solidarity (acting for Mr Visagie) launched a Rule 11 application to dismiss the review application and make the arbitration award an order of Court. Harmony delivered its notice of intention to oppose and answering affidavit on 29 May 2023.  The applicant's replying affidavit to the Rule 11 application was delivered only on 17 August 2023, approximately two and a half months late. Harmony delivered a notice of objection on 18 August 2023.  The applicant then delivered a condonation application on 7 September 2023. The present judgment addressed the condonation application. Summary of Findings: "[14] It is trite that in an application for condonation, a deponent will be required to address the fo...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 8 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Name of Judge(s): Makhura J Summary of Factual Matrix:  On 26 November 2025, the Court dismissed with costs the applicant's application to review and set aside an arbitration award issued by the second respondent on 30 October 2019. In that award, the second respondent concluded that the dismissal of the individual applicant was both substantively and procedurally fair. The applicant subsequently filed an application for leave to appeal against that judgment and order. Summary of Findings: "[3] I have considered the application for leave to appeal, together with the grounds advanced by the applicant as further developed in the written submissions. I have also had regard to the applicable statutory test for the grant of leave to appeal contained in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act and am satisfied that the application meets the requisite threshold." As such, the Court c...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 20 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Name of Judge(s): Daniels J Summary of Factual Matrix:  The third respondent was appointed as section engineer on 1 August 2018. In late March 2021, he was charged with misconduct: (i) conduct unbecoming for appointing a supplier (Fikra) that did not meet safety requirements; (ii) acting against company regulations by not following procurement policy; (iii) gross negligence for taking suppliers underground without induction/training; and (iv) corrupt/fraudulent practices for appointing incompetent suppliers who performed substandard work at inflated rates.  The applicant's case was that the third respondent motivated for Fikra's appointment, indicating compliance with safety directives, but Fikra charged significantly more than the existing supplier (Premier), performed substandard work requiring re-doing, and lacked a safety file. The third respondent testified he sought savings t...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 13 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town Name of Judge(s): Lagrange J Summary of Factual Matrix:  The applicant was employed as a team leader in the employer's farming operation. He was dismissed after being found guilty of three charges: (a) inciting fellow employees to approach management for salary increases; (b) gross negligence relating to health and safety, concerning an injury to an employee sitting on a trailer being towed by a tractor he was driving; and (c) acting in breach of COVID Level 5 lockdown regulations by visiting a clinic 35km away for a routine follow-up consultation, contrary to instructions limiting clinic visits to emergencies.  The arbitrator dismissed the incitement charge but upheld the remaining two, finding the dismissal substantively and procedurally fair. The applicant, representing himself, sought review on grounds including alleged delay in disciplinary action, failure to consider harvest-time...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 13 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Name of Judge(s): Lewis AJ Summary of Factual Matrix:  Professor Ravinder was employed as a Professor at the Graduate School of Business and Government Leadership from 1 October 2016 until dismissal on 4 August 2021. Between December 2019 and February 2020, he attended 22 conferences in India and submitted reimbursement claims for hotel accommodation for five conferences. He was charged with misconduct: "Any act or behaviour which has an element of dishonesty and/or misappropriation... in that you are alleged to have submitted reimbursement claims for hotel accommodation... the said claims are believed to be a misrepresentation or fraudulent claims".  Following disciplinary proceedings, he was found guilty and dismissed. The arbitrator found the dismissal substantively fair. Professor Ravinder sought review. Summary of Findings: "[11] The test to be applied under section 14...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 8 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Name of Judge(s): Steenkamp AJ Summary of Factual Matrix:  The applicant was employed by the Presidential Protection Services (PPS) of SAPS, stationed in Durban. Following tension with Lieutenant Colonel Ngcobo and reciprocal complaints, an internal investigation recommended the applicant's re-deployment as an interim measure.  On 21 January 2025, she was permanently re-deployed to the Information Management Centre. The applicant acknowledged receipt on 29 January 2025 but allegedly continued attending at her original post.  On 28 May 2025, she was charged with failing to comply with the re-deployment instruction. Her salary was stopped on 30 August 2025; she became aware on 9 September 2025. She ceased reporting for duty on 10 September 2025, alleging lack of financial means. Letters of demand were issued in October 2025 and February 2026.  This urgent application was laun...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 17 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Name of Judge(s): Tshisevhe AJ Summary of Factual Matrix:  The applicant was employed as a Lecturer by the First Respondent from 1 August 2013. On 10 October 2021, the Head of Department allocated the module General Principles of Criminal Law (CJUA021) to both the applicant and himself as co-lecturers.  The applicant queried what aspects the HOD would lecture, and was advised the HOD would only intervene when necessary and contribute to assessments, with the applicant remaining primary facilitator.  The applicant reported concerns to the Director and Dean. When asked to provide assessment papers on 16 March 2021, the applicant indicated he would not participate in module activities as he had escalated his grievance.  He was subsequently charged with insubordination and neglect of duties, found guilty, and suspended without pay for three months plus a final written warnin...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 15 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town Name of Judge(s): Lagrange J Summary of Factual Matrix:  The applicant was employed by the Third Respondent as a Central Processing Operator at Red Cross Hospital since 2015. He was found guilty of five charges of misconduct: (1) absence without permission from 17 September to 15 October 2021; (2) failure to submit a medical certificate within reasonable time; (3) derogatory and disrespectful email to supervisor on 10 August 2021; (4) further failure to carry out orders and disrespectful email on 7 December 2021; and (5) leaving the workplace on 4 February 2022 contrary to instruction.  The disciplinary hearing proceeded in his absence after multiple postponements. He was dismissed and his internal appeal failed.  The arbitrator found the dismissal both procedurally and substantively fair. The applicant sought review, alleging inter alia that the arbitrator erred in finding cert...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 8 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Name of Judge(s): Buirski AJ Summary of Factual Matrix:  The applicant made an application for leave to appeal in terms of Rule 67 of the Labour Court Rules against the judgment and order handed down on 30 December 2025.  The application was considered in chambers. Summary of Findings: "[2] I don't consider it necessary to provide reasons for my decision, save to state that I have considered the application for leave to appeal and that I am of the opinion that this application evinces neither a reasonable prospect of success nor any other compelling reason why an appeal should be heard." As such, the Court considered the application for leave to appeal and found it evinced neither a reasonable prospect of success nor any compelling reason why an appeal should be heard, applying the test under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. Order: "1. The application for leave ...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 8 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town Name of Judge(s): Lagrange J Summary of Factual Matrix: The plaintiff was employed by Pioneer Fishing as Human Resources Manager from March 2015. From approximately 2020, she reported on a 'dotted-line' basis to Mr Pieter Greeff, an independent contractor appointed as Group COO.  During 2020, they engaged in a consensual romantic relationship which ended on 19 April 2022, initiated by Greeff. Subsequently, a contemplated formalisation of a Group HR Manager role (for which Greeff had expressed strong support on 1 May 2022) was placed on hold on 19 May 2022.  The plaintiff alleged Greeff's conduct became hostile thereafter. She lodged grievances and reported his conduct to the Group CEO. In February 2023, following a meeting between the plaintiff and Greeff, adverse employee statements were obtained, an independent investigation was conducted, and disciplinary proceedings were instit...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 13 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town Name of Judge(s): De Kock AJ Summary of Factual Matrix:  The First Respondent, Mr Ramoshebi, was employed as Manager: Corporate Services since 1 September 2016. On 19 April 2022, an incident occurred wherein he allegedly conducted himself rudely towards the Head of Department of Metro Police. On 3 May 2022, he was served with a Notice of Intent: Suspension, made representations, and Mangaung accepted those representations and took no further action. Sixteen months later, on 4 September 2023, he was served with a fresh Notice of Intent: Precautionary Suspension based on entirely different allegations concerning failure to execute administrative HR duties. He was suspended from 14 September 2023 to 12 December 2023.  On 9 November 2023, he was charged with misconduct relating exclusively to the April 2022 incident. The presiding officer dismissed the charges on 11 January 2024 due to un...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 7 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Name of Judge(s): Lennox AJ Summary of Factual Matrix:  The First Respondent sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Court delivered on 30 July 2025. The Court had previously found that the Second Respondent (arbitrator) erred in the manner in which the arbitration was concluded, requiring the intervention of the Court. The application for leave to appeal was opposed by the Applicant. Summary of Findings: "[5] In Seatlholo and others v Chemical Energy Paper Printing Wood and Allied Workers Union and others, this Court confirmed that the test applicable in applications for leave to appeal is stringent and held as follows: '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 ju...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 16 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town Name of Judge(s): Gandidze J Summary of Factual Matrix:  The applicant, a Legal Administrative Officer (LAO) in Legal Services at salary level 7, alleged unfair discrimination under section 6(1) and (4) of the Employment Equity Act, claiming he earned approximately R142,000 less than comparators (Tyatyeka at level 7; Captains Samuels and Oliver at level 8) despite performing identical functions. He relied on the arbitrary ground of "exploitation", alleging his skills, experience, and qualifications were undervalued. He also alleged indirect discrimination based on a policy prohibiting grade-skipping. At the close of the applicant's case, the respondent applied for absolution from the instance. Summary of Findings: "[8] Section 6(1) and (4) of the EEA provides as follows: 6 Prohibition of unfair discrimination (1) No person may unfairly discriminate, directly or indirectly, ...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 23 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town Name of Judge(s): MacKenzie AJ Summary of Factual Matrix:  This was an application for leave to appeal against an order made on 25 November 2025 finding the applicant's constructive dismissal claim successful.  The third respondent (employer) sought leave to appeal on multiple grounds, including that: the finding of intolerability was unsustainable; the sick note dispute was wrongfully elevated to intolerability; the applicant's failure to lodge a formal grievance was not properly considered; the salary dispute could have been pursued separately; Albany Bakeries principles were misapplied; alternatives to resignation were not properly weighed; the finding of futility was speculative; the reasoning regarding the "final straw" was contradictory; certain issues were not raised in the CCMA referral; the unpaid salary award was not claimed or proven; and the resignation was pre-pla...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 14 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town Name of Judge(s): Mteto AJ Summary of Factual Matrix:  The applicant contended she was employed by the first respondent (an attorney) for approximately 10 years, rendering typing, appointment scheduling, Sheriff instruction follow-up, and reception services.  The commissioner was required to render an advisory award on whether the applicant was an employee as defined in sections 213 and 200A of the LRA. It was common cause that the respondent provided tools of trade, but disputed whether the respondent exercised control over how the applicant performed her duties.  The applicant submitted she was economically dependent on the respondent and rendered services exclusively to him. Summary of Findings: "[10] An advisory award, as the name suggests, is merely an advice given to the parties to the advisory arbitration. The parties are at liberty to either accept the advice or to reje...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 15 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Name of Judge(s): Snyman AJ Summary of Factual Matrix:  The individual first respondents were employed by the applicant as custodians in the Cash-in-Transit industry, responsible for replenishing ATMs on behalf of banking customers.  During January to June 2019, cash shortages totalling R1,377,690.00 occurred on ATMs attended to by the employees. The employees were charged with gross negligence for being unable to account for shortages they were responsible for. Following disciplinary hearings, all employees were dismissed.  The arbitrator found the dismissals both substantively and procedurally unfair and ordered retrospective reinstatement with back pay. The applicant sought review of the arbitration award. Summary of Findings: "[41] In addition to opening addresses, the parties in casu fortunately also concluded a pre-arbitration minute on 13 November 2020, which identified ...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 14 April 2026; Labour Appeal Court of South Africa, Gqeberha Name of Judge(s): Djaje AJA, Collis AJA, Moshoana AJA Summary of Factual Matrix:  On 12 August 2020, the appellant dismissed approximately 68 employees for reasons related to operational requirements.  The trade union referred a dispute alleging the dismissals were automatically unfair under section 187(1)(c) of the LRA, alternatively substantively unfair. The union amended its statement of case, alleging procedural irregularities (lack of transparency, failure to consult in good faith, non-disclosure of material information) as grounds supporting substantive unfairness.  The appellant raised a point in limine seeking to strike out allegations of procedural irregularities, arguing these were impermissibly raised in a section 189A referral. The Labour Court dismissed the strike-out application. The appellant appealed. Summary of Findings: "[9] This Court fully agrees with ...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 15 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town  Name of Judge(s): Daniels J Summary of Factual Matrix:  The applicant alleged his retrenchment was unfair in substance and procedure. After a lengthy trial, the Court found his dismissal by the second respondent unfair in both respects and granted compensation of eight months' pay. Costs were reserved.  The judgment addressed the question of costs, with the applicant bearing half his costs through Legal Wise and the remainder personally as an unrepresented litigant with no union support. Summary of Findings: "[4] In De Lacy the Constitutional Court noted that, in respect of costs, all the circumstances must be considered. Costs lie within the discretion of the court, but such discretion must be exercised justly and equitably. Section 162 of the Labour Relations Act No. 66 of 1995 (the LRA) echoes that: costs must follow the law and fairness." "[5] In Zungu the Constitutiona...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 8 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Name of Judge(s): Steenkamp AJ Summary of Factual Matrix:  An arbitration award dated 4 June 2025 found the dismissal of the Third Respondent both procedurally and substantively unfair, ordering reinstatement with backpay amounting to R1,559,940.30. The Applicant instructed the State Attorney on 13 June 2025 to institute review proceedings and requested an application to stay enforcement.  Due to an alleged "oversight", the stay application was not pursued. The review application was only instituted on 30 January 2026. On 18 February 2026, the Sheriff served a notice of attachment. The Applicant then instituted the urgent application on 18 March 2026, seeking interim relief staying the writ of execution pending the review outcome. Summary of Findings: "[12] Urgency is not established where it is self created through an applicant's failure to act with the necessary expedi...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 8 April 2026; Labour Appeal Court of South Africa, Cape Town Name of Judge(s): Nkutha-Nkontwana JA, Tokota AJA, Moshoana AJA Summary of Factual Matrix:  Mr Vuyani Qomoyi was employed by Namaqua Wines (Pty) Ltd as a general worker from 27 August 2019 and became a shopsteward of CSAAWU. On 3 August 2021, during a heated debate over the dismissal of a fellow employee, Mr Qomoyi, in a pitched voice, referred to his supervisor, Mr Meyer (a white person), as a "white racist" who "fires black people". Mr Qomoyi was charged with and dismissed for "Displaying Racist behaviour". The arbitrator found the dismissal both substantively and procedurally fair. The Labour Court dismissed the review application. The union appealed to the Labour Appeal Court. Summary of Findings: "[24] Given the history of this country, matters involving allegations of racism require careful consideration. They are not an open and shut cas...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 17 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Durban Name of Judge(s): Whitcher J Summary of Factual Matrix:  The Third Respondent, Mr Zungu, was dismissed following a disciplinary hearing in which he was found guilty of gross misconduct for striking a female co-worker, Ms Masinga, on the neck. At arbitration, the commissioner, substantially on adverse credibility findings, rejected Ms Masinga's version and that of her supervisor who testified that Zungu admitted pushing her. The commissioner found that even if Zungu had struck Ms Masinga, the circumstances rendered dismissal unfair given his nine years of service, clean disciplinary record, and good reputation. The Applicant sought review of the arbitration award. Summary of Findings: "[4] The test in Sidumo dictates the resolution of the controversy, i.e. was the decision one to which no reasonable arbitrator could come on the issues and evidence that served before the commissio...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 14 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Name of Judge(s): Prinsloo J Summary of Factual Matrix:  The First Respondent, Ms Seete, held the position of General Manager: Corporate Services at the Applicant (BankSeta). She was dismissed for misconduct relating to two charges of gross negligence: (1) failure to manage a travel contract with Travel With Flair, resulting in irregular expenditure of R781,152.33; and (2) failure to manage a Vodacom communication contract, resulting in irregular expenditure of R1,417,459.09. The arbitrator found the dismissal substantively unfair and ordered reinstatement with limited back pay. The Applicant sought review of the arbitration award. Summary of Findings: "[88] The test in Sidumo dictates the resolution of the controversy, i.e. was the decision one to which no reasonable arbitrator could come on the issues and evidence that served before the commissioner. At the heart of the exercise is...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 15 April 2026; Labour Appeal Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Name of Judge(s): Nkutha-Nkontwana JA, Djaje AJA, Collis AJA Summary of Factual Matrix:  The appellant, Ms Thembani Banda, was employed by the Department as Chief of Staff (Chief Director) in the office of the Minister in the Presidency from 22 October 2021. On 24 February 2022, she was placed on precautionary suspension pending investigation into allegations of serious misconduct, effected in terms of clause 2.7(2)(a) of the Senior Management Service (SMS) Handbook. The suspension was prolonged for eight months, of which six months were impugned as unfair, following a disciplinary hearing chairperson's interpretation that the 60-day period in clause 2.7(2)(c) referred to weekdays rather than calendar days. The arbitrator found the suspension constituted an unfair labour practice but refused to award compensation. The Labour Court refused to interfere with the arbitrator...