RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN S.A. EMPLOYMENT LAW

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, 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: 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: 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: 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...

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...

Seat of the Court: The Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town Presiding Judge: De Kock, AJ (Acting Judge) Summary of the Basis of the Claim The Applicants, Solidarity and three former employees of Tsebo Facilities Solutions (Pty) Ltd, sought review and setting aside of an arbitration award by Commissioner Reza Slamang. The Commissioner had found that the Applicants had forfeited their entitlement to severance pay in terms of section 41(4) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 ("BCEA") on the basis that Tsebo had "arranged" their alternative employment with Excellerate Facilities Management (Pty) Ltd (CBRE), the incoming service provider at the Sanlam contract. The Applicants contended that they had secured employment with CBRE independently, through their own efforts and applications, prior to the conclusion of any Alternative Employment Agreement ("AEA") between Tsebo and CBRE, and therefore did not forfeit their statutory entitlement to s...