RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN S.A. EMPLOYMENT LAW

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Johannesburg Nature of the Application [1] The application concerned the reinstatement of a review application deemed withdrawn in terms of clause 11.2.3 of the Labour Court Practice Manual, owing to the applicant's failure to file the record within sixty days after being notified by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 Clause 11.2.3 provided that failure to file a record within sixty days resulted in the application being deemed withdrawn, unless consent for extension was obtained or an application made to the Judge President.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 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] 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] 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...

Citation: [2026] ZALCCT 41 Presiding Judge: De Kock AJ Court: Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town Nature of the Application [1] This matter came before the Court as a review application wherein the Applicant sought the Jurisdiction Ruling by the Second Respondent (Commissioner R Olivier), dated 2 March 2021, to be reviewed and set aside. Factual Matrix and Jurisdictional Ruling [4]–[5] Paragraphs 29 and 31 of the ruling stated: "[4] Paragraph 31 of the ruling states the following: 'I find that the material and fraudulent misrepresentation in this matter where Mr Kwayiso, as the applicant's representative, acted as her representative without having locus standi vitiated the whole of the arbitration proceedings and the matter is therefore null and void.' [5] This Court was also referred to paragraph 29 of the ruling which states as follows: 'The applicant submitted that even should costs be considered it should only be considered when the arbitration is co...

Citation: [2026] ZALCJHB 53 Presiding Judge: Mahalelo AJ Court: Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Nature of the Application [1] This was an application for leave to appeal against the whole of this Court's judgment and order delivered on 30 December 2025, in which the Court found that the dismissal of the applicant by the respondent for operational reasons was unfair and ordered reinstatement. Test for Leave to Appeal [4]–[5] Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 was applied: "[4] Section 17(1) of the Superior Court Act deals with the relief of leave to appeal. In terms thereof, leave to appeal may only be granted (a) where a judge/s are of the opinion that (a) the appeal 'would' not 'may', have reasonable prospects of success (b) there are some compelling reasons why the appeal should be heard, including the existence of conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration. [5] It has been confirmed that the use of the words ...

Citation: [2026] ZALCPE 9 Presiding Judge: Lagrange J Court: Labour Court of South Africa at Gqeberha (Port Elizabeth) Nature of the Application [1] This matter concerned a special plea raised by the defendant, Motorvia, to a referral of an unfair dismissal claim for alleged participation in strike action. The central question was whether a settlement agreement concluded on 2 March 2021 precluded the prosecution of a subsequent unfair dismissal dispute. Factual Matrix [2] The dispute arose during March and April 2020 amidst the implementation of 'lockdown' regulations under the Covid-19 pandemic. The company contended that employees had embarked on unprotected strike action on the eve of the first severe lockdown regulations at the end of March 2020. [3] When work was to resume at the end of May 2020, the 32 plaintiffs claimed they were prevented from returning to work. Initially, they treated their exclusion as a dismissal and referred an unfair dismissal dispute to t...