RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN S.A. EMPLOYMENT LAW

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 14 October 2026, Labour Court, Johannesburg Case No: JR1578/22 Name of Judge(s): Mahomed AJ Summary of Factual Matrix: The applicant, a VIP driver for Gotcha Security Services, had twice been reinstated by the CCMA after unfair dismissals, and in 2025 the Constitutional Court ordered his retrospective reinstatement and payment of remuneration for August 2019 to May 2021. Meanwhile, after a handful of brief and repeatedly postponed telephonic consultations in June and July 2021, the employer retrenched him on 31 July 2021 without severance pay. A CCMA commissioner found the retrenchment procedurally and substantively fair. The applicant applied, one day late, to review the award. The employer's employee refused to accept service at its offices; some eleven months later it filed an answering affidavit raising only preliminary points (defective service, that the review was deemed withdrawn under the Practice Manual, and prematurity of condonati...

Seat of Court: Labour Court, Johannesburg Date Delivered: 14 October 2026 Case No: 2025-181685 Name of Judge(s): Van Nieuwenhuizen AJ Factual Summary: In restraint-of-trade litigation between Rand Air and its former employee, Mr Haripersad, the employee's application for leave to appeal was refused on 19 June 2026. His written submissions, drafted and advanced by his attorneys (Avon Singh Attorneys Inc) and counsel (Adv Singh), had attributed the judgment to 'laziness, or ignorance, or some underhand dealings' and alleged that it had been cut and pasted from another judgment. After calling on the practitioners to show cause, the Court in a supplementary judgment of 8 July 2026 ordered the firm and counsel to pay Rand Air's costs personally, jointly and severally, disallowed their fees for that proceeding, and referred the matter to the Legal Practice Council. The firm, its director Mr Avon Singh and Adv Singh applied in their own names for leave to appeal against th...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 14 October 2026, Labour Court, Johannesburg Case No: 2026/214432 Name of Judge(s): Tlhotlhalemaje J Summary of Factual Matrix: The applicant, Denel's Group Executive: HR and Transformation, was suspended in August 2025 and charged in May 2026 with serious misconduct. Late in the disciplinary enquiry, after her recusal application failed, she and her representative walked out and NUMSA referred a request under section 188A(11) of the LRA to the CCMA, alleging that the discipline was retaliation for protected disclosures. The enquiry continued in her absence; on 14 September 2026 the CCMA enrolled the referral and appointed an arbitrator. On 15 September Ramji AJ declared that the internal hearing had terminated automatically on 14 September; Denel immediately applied for leave to appeal, and on 16 September the chairperson imposed dismissal, which Denel implemented. In a second urgent application the applicant sought declarators that the CCMA...

Seat of Court: Labour Court, Johannesburg Date Delivered: 13 October 2026 Case No: 2026-092262 Name of Judge(s): Tshisevhe AJ Factual Summary: Grundfos (Pty) Ltd applied for leave to appeal against the Court's judgment and order of 9 July 2026 in proceedings against Mr Thiart and Xylem Water Solutions South Africa. The ruling does not describe the underlying dispute or the grounds of appeal. The respondents opposed the application, which was determined in chambers on the grounds for leave to appeal and the opposing submissions. The sole issue was whether the proposed appeal had reasonable prospects of success. Legal Questions Considered: [2] ‘Having considered the grounds for leave to appeal as well as opposing submissions, I conclude that the application is refused due to lack of reasonable prospects of success.’ Relief: The application for leave to appeal was refused for want of reasonable prospects of success, with no order as to costs. Judgment on SAFLII

Seat of Court: Labour Court, Johannesburg Date Delivered: 13 October 2026 Case No: JR907/2024 Name of Judge(s): Munsamy AJ Factual Summary: merSETA had awarded the Social Enterprise Trust discretionary-grant funding of some R119 million under a 2021 Memorandum of Agreement to implement skills programmes. Relying on a forensic report of January 2023, it terminated the agreement with immediate effect and in 2024 launched a legality self-review to set aside the award, contending that it was procurement subject to section 217 of the Constitution and had been concluded by an official without authority. In its principal judgment of 15 June 2026 the Court dismissed the self-review, upheld SET's counter-application declaring the termination invalid, directed merSETA to perform under the agreement subject to its terms and the statutory framework, and awarded costs including those of Senior Counsel. merSETA applied for leave to appeal against the whole judgment, reformulating its case ar...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 12 October 2026, Labour Court, Johannesburg Case No: JR1361/22 Name of Judge(s): Williams AJ Summary of Factual Matrix: The third respondent, the municipality's Deputy Manager: Supply Chain Management, was implicated by a forensic investigation into irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure in 2017 and 2018. He was found guilty at a disciplinary hearing of gross negligence on six charges and of contravening section 78(1)(a) of the Municipal Finance Management Act, and was dismissed in November 2020. The bargaining council arbitrator, despite finding that he knew his responsibilities, that the procurements were non-compliant, that his omissions were proved and that he could have foreseen the irregular expenditure, exonerated him of the charges, held the dismissal substantively unfair, and ordered reinstatement with seven months' back pay. The municipality applied to review the award; the employee, though represented at the hearing, fi...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 6 October 2026, Labour Court, Johannesburg Case No: 2026/224347 Name of Judge(s): Snyman AJ Summary of Factual Matrix: DETAWU, which represents employees at the applicant's Durban logistics operations, referred a mutual-interest dispute to the CCMA in December 2024 demanding that the applicant's Industrial Relations Manager be transferred pending an investigation into his conduct towards union members. In August 2025 the parties concluded a Memorandum of Agreement, a collective agreement, in full and final settlement of all disputes: the allegations were to be investigated by an agreed independent third party whose findings would bind the parties, and the CCMA referral was to be withdrawn. The appointed CCMA senior commissioner found that the manager had a case to answer and recommended a written or final written warning; the applicant issued a written warning. Dissatisfied with that outcome and its implementation, DETAWU obtained picket...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 30 September 2026, Labour Court, Johannesburg Case No: JS867/2021 Name of Judge(s): Mabaso AJ Summary of Factual Matrix: The plaintiff, a Lesotho national with permanent residence in South Africa, had served as Chief Executive Officer of the Commission for Gender Equality for ten years when her contract was due to end in July 2020. The post was advertised stating that preference would be given to South African citizens. A recruitment agency shortlisted her, but the high-level selection panel unanimously rejected that shortlist, noting among other things that she was not a citizen; an invitation to interview sent to her by HR was withdrawn as having been issued in error, and the second respondent was appointed. The plaintiff sued under the Employment Equity Act, alleging unfair discrimination on the grounds of ethnic, social, cultural, language or birth origin, or an analogous arbitrary ground, and that the withdrawal of her name was arbitrary an...

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 31 August 2026, Labour Court, Johannesburg Case No: JS260/22 Name of Judge(s): Mabaso AJ Summary of Factual Matrix: The applicants, tailors and clothing makers retrenched by Suzy J Designs (Pty) Ltd in 2021, obtained an order on 8 May 2024 declaring the retrenchment unfair and directing the company to pay compensation, unlawfully deducted severance pay and costs. When they tried to enforce it they discovered that the company had gone into voluntary liquidation, which, it later emerged, had commenced in 2022 and been finalised in 2023. They found that the same director now ran Suzy J Clothing (Pty) Ltd from other premises, producing similar garments with some former colleagues, the same machinery, clients and contact details. The applicants, acting pro bono, sought declarators that the business had been transferred to the second respondent as a going concern under section 197 of the LRA and that the 2024 order was enforceable against, and should ...