RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN S.A. EMPLOYMENT LAW

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 7 October 2026, Labour Court, Durban Case No: D636/2021 Name of Judge(s): Allen-Yaman J Summary of Factual Matrix: Four employees of Concord Refrigeration, represented by NUMSA, were dismissed in June 2018 for assaulting and intimidating a temporary employee who was reporting for duty during a protected strike. A first arbitration award in their favour was set aside on review, and at the arbitration de novo the commissioner found the dismissals fair. Before that hearing he had ruled the victim’s evidence admissible as hearsay under section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, the victim having refused to attend despite subpoenas. The employer relied on a manager who witnessed the assault and filmed the employees nearby immediately afterwards, the victim’s identification of them from that video, and his statement to the police. NUMSA applied to review the award, contending that the employer’s witnesses were unreliable and dishonest, that the e...

Seat of Court: Labour Court, Johannesburg Date Delivered: 6 October 2026 Case No: JR1666/21 Name of Judge(s): Van Nieuwenhuizen AJ Factual Summary: The applicant, a senior employee and mine manager, was dismissed by Royal Bafokeng Platinum following disciplinary proceedings conducted by way of written representations, on charges including failing to identify and act upon a conflict of interest between two contractors (charge 3) and failing to take timeous steps regarding inflated contractor rates (charge 6). The commissioner found the dismissal substantively and procedurally fair, and on 21 April 2026 the Court dismissed the applicant’s review application. The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court, contending that others in the approval chain had not been disciplined; that the commissioner had relied on a hearsay spreadsheet on charge 5 without an admissibility enquiry under section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, said to raise a compelling reason for ...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 5 October 2026, Labour Court, Cape Town Case No: C319/2024 Name of Judge(s): Motshekga AJ Summary of Factual Matrix: The employee, a senior operational supervisor and driver in the City’s Urban Waste Management directorate with 34 years’ unblemished service, was dismissed on a charge of misusing a City vehicle for private purposes in order to solicit money from residents, after a member of the public alleged that he had asked for a tip in return for removing refuse bags. The bargaining council commissioner found that misuse of the vehicle had not been established but that the solicitation of a tip had been proved; he held dismissal too harsh for a first offence, reinstated the employee with limited back pay and directed that a final written warning be issued. The City applied under section 145 of the LRA to review the award and for substitution or remittal, contending that the commissioner should have found misuse or attempted misuse, that solic...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 2 October 2026, Labour Court, Johannesburg Case No: JR747/22 Name of Judge(s): Olivier AJ Summary of Factual Matrix: The applicant union’s 47 members, employed by the third respondent in an essential service, embarked on an unprotected strike in defiance of a CCMA essential services ruling, three ultimatums and an interdict of this Court, and were summarily dismissed on 23 July 2020. The union referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the bargaining council on 1 August 2021, some eleven months out of time. On the papers, the commissioner refused condonation on 23 February 2022 for excessive delay, the absence of a reasonable explanation (the delay having been attributed generically to union officials) and the absence of prospects of success. The union applied under section 145 of the LRA to review the condonation ruling, but launched the review on 12 April 2022, after the six-week period had expired, without applying for condonation of that latene...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 2 October 2026, Labour Court, Johannesburg Case No: 2026/187373 Name of Judge(s): Snyman AJ Summary of Factual Matrix: The South African Municipal Workers Union brought an urgent application to declare unlawful deductions made by the first respondent municipality from its members’ salaries, to interdict further deductions and to compel repayment. The respondents opposed the application through attorneys who had appointed a specific e-mail address for service. The matter was removed from the roll on 12 August 2026 owing to a registry difficulty, and the applicant’s attorneys then secured a fresh set-down for 14 August 2026 without serving any notice of set-down on the appointed address; correspondence was copied only to the respondents’ attorney’s private e-mail address and the hearing link was sent to the municipality directly. The order was granted in the respondents’ absence on 14 August 2026. The respondents applied urgently, under Labour Cou...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 1 October 2026, Labour Court, Durban Case No: D346/2021 Name of Judge(s): Lallie J Summary of Factual Matrix: The applicant had been appointed as a principal clerk in the eThekwini Municipality’s Durban Solid Waste department. In an unfair labour practice dispute brought by another employee, represented by IMATU, the bargaining council arbitrator set aside her appointment by an award of 23 February 2021, and her services were terminated on 30 April 2021. She filed a review application on 31 May 2021 and the record on 31 August 2021, but took no further step; her attorneys mistakenly believed they had to await the municipality’s answering affidavit. In July 2024 they learnt that the review had lapsed and been archived under clauses 11.2.7 and 16.1 of the Practice Manual. On 26 September 2024 she applied to reinstate the review, which the municipality opposed. The issues were the extent of and explanation for the delay, prospects of success (inclu...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 18 September 2026, Labour Court, Johannesburg Case No: JR2384/22 Name of Judge(s): Whittington AJ Summary of Factual Matrix: The employee, a mineworker represented by AMCU, was dismissed by Sibanye Gold after security officers testified that they had found him underground carrying a five-litre paint tin containing cannabis and excess food, items prohibited by the employer’s safety and anti-illegal-mining rules. The employee contended that he had been framed. The commissioner found the dismissal substantively unfair, holding that the employer’s witness had conceded that the photographs of the items were contaminated, that the photographs were inadmissible hearsay, that the employee’s detailed version (additional officers, a journey to the stope and a locker search) was undisputed, and that a discrepancy between brown and white bread undermined the employer’s witnesses. Sibanye applied under section 145 of the LRA to review the award on the ground...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 18 February 2026, Labour Court, Gqeberha Case No: P57/2023 Name of Judge(s): Thys AJ Summary of Factual Matrix: Ms Tshentu, an employee of the Eastern Cape Department of Health appointed in January 2020, referred a dispute to the Public Service Co-ordinating Bargaining Council (PSCBC) in September 2022 about the interpretation and application of Resolutions 3 of 2009 and 1 of 2012, which she contended entitled her to a salary adjustment. Without hearing oral evidence, and after the parties had been told that the merits would be decided after evidence, an arbitrator conducted the proceedings virtually and, on 27 April 2023, issued a ruling that the PSCBC lacked jurisdiction because Ms Tshentu had been appointed after the relevant date. The employee and her union applied to review that ruling, contending that it concerned the merits and not jurisdiction, that the arbitrator had relied on a DPSA circular rather than the resolutions, and that the...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 11 September 2026, Labour Court, Johannesburg Case No: 2026/216977 Name of Judge(s): Bekker AJ Summary of Factual Matrix: Ms Hlahla, a Deputy Director: Acquisitions (Supply Chain Management) in the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies, was served on 26 August 2026 with a notice of disciplinary proceedings containing 11 allegations of misconduct, some dating from 2024. She claimed to have made protected disclosures about interference in supply chain processes and irregular expenditure, and that the proceedings were an occupational detriment under the Protected Disclosures Act and unfair disciplinary action short of dismissal. She referred a dispute to the CCMA (later transferred to the bargaining council) on 1 September 2026, and her attorney's letter demanding an undertaking that the hearing be held in abeyance was not met. She brought an urgent application to interdict the hearing, scheduled for 7 to 9 September 2026, pe...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 18 September 2026, Labour Court, Johannesburg Case No: JR2685/21 Name of Judge(s): Heideman AJ Summary of Factual Matrix: Mr Maila, a truck driver employed by Sekhukhune Logistics since October 2019, was dismissed on 21 September 2020 after a disciplinary hearing at which he was found guilty of four counts of negligently damaging the employer's trucks, essentially because prop shafts had fallen off and, on one occasion, a clutch plate had burnt. A bargaining council arbitrator found the dismissal substantively unfair on 24 November 2021, concluding that causation between his conduct and the damage was not established, that the mechanics rather than drivers were responsible for tightening the bolts, and that the employer had not applied progressive discipline. He ordered reinstatement and three months' backpay. The employer's s 145 review, filed in time with all papers delivered by 6 July 2022, was not enrolled until the employee...