RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN S.A. EMPLOYMENT LAW

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...