RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN S.A. EMPLOYMENT LAW

Seat of the Court: The Labour Appeal Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Presiding Judges: Van Niekerk JA, Chetty AJA and Kganyago AJA (Judgment delivered by Chetty AJA) Summary of the Basis of the Claim The Appellant, AMCU on behalf of Mr Otshepeng Kgotlang, appealed against a decision of the Labour Court (Manchu AJ) which dismissed a review application challenging an arbitration award that had confirmed the substantive fairness of Mr Kgotlang's dismissal. Mr Kgotlang, a part-time shop steward and branch secretary of AMCU at Siyanda Bakgatla Platinum Mine, was dismissed following a disciplinary hearing in which he was found guilty of gross insubordination (for refusing to obey lawful instructions to report for underground duties) and clocking fraud (for clocking in without reporting for duty). He contended that a "gentleman's agreement" exempted shop stewards from reporting underground, and that procedural requirements for transfer to underground duties had not been ...

Seat of the Court: The Labour Appeal Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Presiding Judges: Nkutha-Nkontwana JA, Davis AJA and Musi AJA (Judgment delivered by Davis AJA) Summary of the Basis of the Claim The Appellant, Arcelormittal South Africa Limited, appealed against a judgment of the Labour Court (Erasmus AJ) which dismissed its application to review and set aside a designation ruling of the Essential Services Committee ("ESC"). The ESC had determined that the blast furnace and coke battery operations at the Appellant's steel plant did not constitute "essential services" as defined in section 213 of the LRA. The Appellant contended that interruption of these operations would endanger the life, personal safety or health of its employees during the requisite shutdown procedures, and therefore sought a declaration that these operations be designated as essential services to limit the right to strike in those areas. Analysis and Findings of the Court with Direct...

2. Seat of the Court The Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town 3. Presiding Judge: De Kock, AJ (Acting Judge) 4. Summary of the Basis of the Claim The Applicant, Ms Vanessa Adams, referred a dispute to the Labour Court seeking declaratory relief that she was an employee of the Fourth Respondent (Western Cape Government Department of Cultural Affairs and Sport) in terms of section 200A of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 ("the LRA"); that she was unfairly dismissed in terms of section 185(a) of the LRA; and that she be awarded appropriate relief in terms of section 193(1) of the LRA. The Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents raised preliminary objections on the grounds that: (i) the Applicant ought to have referred the unfair dismissal dispute to the relevant bargaining council before approaching the Labour Court; and (ii) the Applicant was an independent contractor contracted by the Third Respondent (Quantum Leap Consulting (Pty) Ltd) and not an employee of the State. 5. A...

Citation: [2026] ZALCCT 45 Court: Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town A. Nature of Proceedings This was an application brought in terms of section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 ("the Act"), seeking an order placing the judgment of Bosch AJ, delivered on 29 September 2025 under case number 2025-048772, into operation and execution notwithstanding the Respondent's pending Petition for Leave to Appeal to the Labour Appeal Court. B. Background Chronology 1. The Applicant was employed as a Maintenance Fitter at the Respondent's processing plant in Worcester. On 7 January 2013, he was dismissed for alleged dishonesty arising from clocking offences. 2. On 17 June 2013, a CCMA commissioner found the dismissal unfair and ordered reinstatement with effect from the date of dismissal, together with backpay of R120,075.24. 3. The Applicant reported for duty on 8 July 2013 but was sent home. The Respondent launched a review application and obtained a stay of execu...

Citation: [2026] ZALCCT 44  Court: Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town A. Nature of Proceedings This was an application for default judgment pursuant to a statement of claim delivered by the Applicant acting "in person"  following prior proceedings before the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration ("CCMA"). B. Material Facts 1. The dispute concerned the Applicant's dismissal for operational requirements. 2. The Applicant referred the dispute to the Labour Court in terms of section 191(5)(b)(ii) of the LRA. 3. The referral to the CCMA was made on 18 June 2024; conciliation was held on 11 July 2024; the Applicant elected arbitration, which was held on 23 September 2025. 4. Commissioner Martin Rabie, on 29 September 2025, ruled that section 191(12) of the LRA did not apply where an employer dismissed more than one employee within a 12-month period with a workforce exceeding 10 employees, and accordingly held the CCMA lacked jurisdiction, affordi...

Citation: [2026] ZALCCT 46 Court: Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town A. Nature of Proceedings This was an unopposed application brought before the Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town, for the review and setting aside of an arbitration award wherein the second respondent (the arbitrator) refused an application for condonation made by the Applicant. B. Material Facts 1. The Applicant referred a dispute to the First Respondent on 27 June 2024, alleging dismissal on that same date for reasons unknown to her. 2. The matter was scheduled for conciliation/arbitration ("con/arb") on 26 July 2024. No objection having been received, Commissioner Reagan Jacobs proceeded in default. 3. During evidence, it emerged that the actual date of dismissal was 15 January 2024, not 27 June 2024 as averred. Commissioner Jacobs accordingly ruled on 2 August 2024 that the referral was filed outside the time prescribed by section 191(1)(b)(ii) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 ("the ...

Citation: [2026] ZALAC 10 Presiding Judges: Djaje AJA (Mahalelo ADJP and Waglay AJA concurring)  Court: Labour Appeal Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Nature of the Appeal [1] This was an appeal against the judgment of the Labour Court, where the appellant's review application was dismissed. The appellant filed a review challenging an arbitration award which determined that the appellant had unfairly dismissed the third respondent. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement. Factual Matrix [2]–[3] The third respondent commenced employment with the appellant on 18 April 2018 as a Final Level Grader Operator. In November 2020, Mr Peter Gray, the appellant's Operator Training Manager, approached the third respondent regarding operational needs and a possible transfer to Postmansburg in the Northern Cape. The third respondent declined the transfer as he did not wish to be away from his family. He testified that Gray told him the appellant intended to retrench him, and that if he...

Citation:  [2026] ZALCPE 8 Presiding Judge: Kroon AJ  Court: Labour Court of South Africa at Gqeberha (Port Elizabeth) Nature of the Application and Procedural History [1]–[7] This opposed reinstatement application was set down for 19 February 2026. The Court file was in an untidy and disorganised state, with the majority of documents loose and in no logical order, and had not been indexed and paginated since leave was granted to file further pleadings on 20 November 2025. The Applicant's legal representative was furnished with the Court file to attend to indexing but left the Court building with the entire file, including the "brown cover", without the Registrar's permission or knowledge. When returned at 14h37, the file remained in an unacceptable state with loose pages and unbound documentation. What the Rules Say: Indexing and Removal of Court Records [12]–[14] On indexing: "[12] At Common law, there is an overarching duty on an applicant, as do...

Citation: 2026] ZALCJHB 54 Presiding Judge: Prinsloo J  Court: Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Nature of the Application and Pleadings [1]–[7] The Court emphasised the binding nature of pleadings and the pre-trial minute: "[1] Before I deal with the merits of the case and the evidence adduced, it is necessary to say something about the pleadings filed. It is trite law that the court and the parties are bound by the pleadings and the pre-trial agreement and the issues they agreed to in the pre-trial minute. This Court cannot and should not go beyond the issues it is required to determine, with reference only to the pleadings and the pre-trial minute. [2] Jacob and Goldrein aptly capture the position as follows: 'As the parties are adversaries, it is left to each of them to formulate his case in his own way, subject to the basic rules of pleadings... For the sake of certainty and finality, each party is bound by his own pleading and cannot be allowed to raise a dif...

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 ...