South Africa Case Law

Steenkamp and Others v Edcon Limited (CCT46/15, CCT47/15)

Steenkamp and Others v Edcon Limited (CCT46/15, CCT47/15) [2016] ZACC 1; (2016) 37 ILJ 564 (CC); 2016 (3) BCLR 311 (CC); [2016] 4 BLLR 335 (CC); 2016 (3) SA 251 (CC) (22 January 2016)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT46/15, CCT47/15

Judges

Mogoeng, Moseneke, Cameron, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Matojane, Nkabinde, Van der Westhuizen, Wallis, Zondo

The Constitutional Court was divided. The majority (Cameron J) held that non-compliance with the statutory time periods in section 189A(8) of the Labour Relations Act renders dismissals for operational requirements invalid. The majority reasoned that section 189A was enacted to create a dismissal-free zone during which consensus may be sought and alternatives explored, and that the obligation to respect the time periods is foundational to the statutory scheme. Dismissals effected in breach of section 189A(8) are a nullity and have no force or effect, and the contract of employment is not term…

Source excerpt

• Retrenchment Procedure
• Section 189a Lra
• Procedural Fairness
• Unfair Dismissal
• Remedies For Unlawful Dismissal
• Constitutional Right To Fair Labour Practices

National Union of Mineworkers and Another v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JA90/2013)

National Union of Mineworkers and Another v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JA90/2013) [2014] ZALAC 51 (1 October 2014)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA90/2013

Judges

Tlaletsi, Musi, Kathree-Setiloane

The Labour Appeal Court upheld a refusal of legal representation at CCMA arbitration in a sexual harassment dismissal dispute and dismissed the appeal.

• Legal Representation At Ccma
• Rule 25 Ccma
• Unfair Dismissal
• Sexual Harassment
• Constitutional Right To Fair Labour Practices
• Ccma-legal-representation

Opperman v Minister of Defence And Military Veterans (6600/13)

Opperman v Minister of Defence And Military Veterans (6600/13) [2014] ZAGPPHC 105 (12 March 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

6600/13

Judge

Malindi

The court found that the applicant's claim was premature as he had not exhausted the internal grievance procedures prescribed by departmental regulations. The regulations clearly required that any grievance relating to promotion, placement, or service benefits, including remuneration, must first be addressed through internal remedies before judicial intervention. The applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying exemption from this requirement. The court held that, in the absence of a constitutional challenge to the regulations, the applicant could not bypass the prescr…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Labour Practice
• Contractual Remuneration
• Exhaustion Of Internal Remedies
• Grievance Procedure
• Constitutional Right To Fair Labour Practices

South African Maritime Safety Authority v McKenzie (017/09)

South African Maritime Safety Authority v McKenzie (017/09) [2010] ZASCA 2; 2010 (3) SA 601 (SCA) ; [2010] 3 All SA 1 (SCA) ; (2010) 31 ILJ 529 (SCA) ; [2010] 5 BLLR 488 (SCA) (15 February 2010)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

017/09

Judges

MPATI, NUGENT, MHLANTLA, LEACH, WALLIS

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the right not to be unfairly dismissed, as set out in section 185 of the Labour Relations Act, is a statutory right and does not constitute an implied term in contracts of employment for employees covered by the LRA. The statutory scheme provides both the right and the exclusive remedies, including limits on compensation and procedures for enforcement, which must be pursued through the CCMA or Labour Court. The High Court has jurisdiction to hear contractual claims, but in this case, the pleaded claim for damages based on an alleged implied term prohibiti…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Contractual Rights In Employment
• Jurisdiction Of High Courts
• Implied Terms
• Constitutional Right To Fair Labour Practices

Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) and Another v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (2756/2006)

Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) and Another v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (2756/2006) [2008] ZAECHC 125; (2008) 29 ILJ 2185 (E) (17 July 2008)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

2756/2006

Judge

A.R. Erasmus

The court held that, in light of the Constitutional Court's decision in Chirwa v Transnet Limited and Others, the Labour Court has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes concerning unfair labour practices, even where the employer is an organ of state. The applicant's attempt to frame the dispute as a constitutional or administrative law matter does not alter its essential character as a labour dispute governed by the Labour Relations Act. The High Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application. Allegations of unlawful conduct are incidental and do not constitute a separate subs…

Source excerpt

• Exclusive Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Unfair Labour Practice
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Constitutional Right To Fair Labour Practices

National Entitled Worker's Union v Commissioner for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) and Others (JA51/03)

National Entitled Worker's Union v Commissioner for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) and Others (JA51/03) [2007] ZALAC 3; [2007] 7 BLLR 623 (LAC); (2007) 28 ILJ 1223 (LAC) (13 March 2007)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA51/03

Judges

Jappie, Zondo, H.M Musi

The court held that the Labour Relations Act and Employment Equity Act do not unconstitutionally fail to provide employers with protection against unfair labour practices perpetrated by employees. The statutory framework is designed to address the social and economic imbalance between employers and employees, affording protection to employees who are generally in a weaker position. Employers retain common law and statutory remedies for unlawful resignations, such as claims for notice pay, but there is no need for a statutory unfair labour practice remedy for employers. The absence of such a r…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Labour Practice
• Constitutional Right To Fair Labour Practices
• Equality Before The Law
• Termination Of Employment
• Jurisdiction Of Ccma

Mathews v Glaxosmithkline SA (Pty) Limited (JS239/04)

Mathews v Glaxosmithkline SA (Pty) Limited (JS239/04) [2006] ZALC 35; [2007] 3 BLLR 230 (LC); (2006) 27 ILJ 1876 (LC) (10 February 2006)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

JS239/04

Judge

Nel

The Court found that the Applicant failed to prove that the Respondent's conduct amounted to an unfair labour practice or an unfair dismissal under Chapter VIII of the Labour Relations Act. The differentiation in retrenchment benefits was adequately explained: errors in payment for Messrs Brink and Bagg, and a unique negotiated settlement with Dr Moore, whose termination was not a retrenchment but an agreed separation due to his strong bargaining position. The Court held that, unless improper or unfair differentiation is proven without objective justification, there is no breach of the LRA or…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Labour Practice
• Retrenchment
• Differentiation In Benefits
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Constitutional Right To Fair Labour Practices

Rampola v MEC for Education Limpopo and Another (26675/05)

Rampola v MEC for Education Limpopo and Another (26675/05) [2005] ZAGPHC 111; (2006) 27 ILJ 591 (T) (24 October 2005)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

26675/05

Judge

Van Rooyen

The High Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes that are essentially about unfair labour practices, unfair dismissal, or demotion governed by the Labour Relations Act. The applicant's case is fundamentally based on alleged unfairness in terms of the LRA and PAJA, not on a common law cause of action. The mere invocation of constitutional or administrative justice grounds does not circumvent the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court and the dispute resolution mechanisms established by the LRA. The application lacks sufficient specificity under PAJA and does not raise a con…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Constitutional Right To Fair Labour Practices

Jonker v Okhahlamba Municipality and Others (LD71/05)

Jonker v Okhahlamba Municipality and Others (LD71/05) [2005] ZALC 22; [2005] 6 BLLR 564 (LC); (2005) 26 ILJ 782 (LC) (21 February 2005)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

LD71/05

Judge

Pillay D

The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the application because the employment contract requires disputes to be resolved by private arbitration, and the applicant failed to show compelling reasons to override this agreement. The applicant did not establish a clear right to an interdict, as there was no breach of contract or unfair labour practice proven. The disciplinary inquiry was scheduled in accordance with the contract and at the applicant's request. The applicant failed to demonstrate actual or potential prejudice arising from the procedure, and the medical certificate submitted was…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Labour Practice
• Disciplinary Inquiry
• Breach Of Contract
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Arbitration Clause
• Constitutional Right To Fair Labour Practices