South Africa Case Law

National Union of Metalworkers of South African obo Members v SAA Technical SOC Ltd (JA109/23)

National Union of Metalworkers of South African obo Members v SAA Technical SOC Ltd (JA109/23) [2024] ZALAC 41; (2024) 45 ILJ 2524 (LAC); [2024] 12 BLLR 1259 (LAC) (10 September 2024)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA109/23

Judges

Molahlehi, Sutherland, Musi

The Labour Appeal Court held that, notwithstanding the completion of a facilitated consultation process in large-scale retrenchments under section 189A of the Labour Relations Act, a referral to conciliation is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite before a dispute about the fairness of a dismissal may be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Court reasoned that facilitation is a pre-dismissal process focused on consultation and compliance, whereas conciliation is a post-dismissal process aimed at resolving the actual dispute about the fairness of the dismissal. The statutory t…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Retrenchment
• Operational Requirements
• Conciliation Requirement
• Labour Relations Act Interpretation

AFGRI Animal Feeds (A Division of PhilAfrica Foods (Pty) Limited) v National Union of Metalworkers South Africa and Others (CCT 188/22)

AFGRI Animal Feeds (A Division of PhilAfrica Foods (Pty) Limited) v National Union of Metalworkers South Africa and Others (CCT 188/22) [2024] ZACC 13; 2024 (9) BCLR 1111 (CC); (2024) 45 ILJ 1937 (CC); 2024 (5) SA 576 (CC); [2024] 10 BLLR 999 (CC) (21 June 2024)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 188/22

Judges

Maya, Chaskalson, Dodson, Kollapen, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Rogers, Schippers, Tshiqi

NUMSA's constitution restricts membership to workers in the metal and related industries. The dismissed employees, employed in the animal feeds industry, were not eligible for membership. NUMSA's act in admitting them as members was ultra vires and invalid. Section 200 of the Labour Relations Act does not confer standing on a union to represent non-members. There is no legal basis for distinguishing between standing for organisational rights and standing for representation in unfair dismissal disputes. NUMSA therefore lacked authority and legal standing to represent the dismissed employees in…

Source excerpt

• Locus Standi
• Trade Union Scope
• Unfair Dismissal
• Ultra Vires Act
• Labour Relations Act Interpretation

Italsafaris CC t/a Viva Safaris v NUFBWSAW obo Members and Others (JA74/2023)

Italsafaris CC t/a Viva Safaris v NUFBWSAW obo Members and Others (JA74/2023) [2024] ZALAC 28; (2024) 45 ILJ 2004 (LAC); [2024] 11 BLLR 1101 (LAC) (31 May 2024)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA74/2023

Judges

Molahlehi, Van Niekerk, Nkutha-Nkontwana

Section 145(3) of the Labour Relations Act does not operate independently from sections 145(7) and (8). The statutory scheme requires that, in review proceedings, the default position is the furnishing of security as prescribed in section 145(8), unless the Labour Court exercises its discretion to absolve or reduce the security requirement based on cogent evidence. The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify exemption from security or to demonstrate financial incapacity. The Labour Court's construction, in line with the Labour Appeal Court's binding authority in City of Joh…

Source excerpt

• Stay Of Execution
• Security For Review
• Labour Relations Act Interpretation
• Arbitration Award Enforcement
• Judicial Discretion

South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union v Massmart Holding Limited and Others (JA119/2022)

South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union v Massmart Holding Limited and Others (JA119/2022) [2024] ZALAC 13; (2024) 45 ILJ 1610 (LAC) (29 April 2024)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA119/2022

Judges

Waglay JP, Savage JA, Malindi AJA

The Labour Appeal Court held that section 68(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, as amended, confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Labour Court to order just and equitable compensation for losses attributable to unlawful conduct committed during any strike, whether protected or unprotected. The Court found that the reference to 'any conduct' in section 68(1) is not limited to conduct occurring in unprotected strikes but includes unlawful conduct during protected strikes. The immunity provided by section 67(2) and (6) does not extend to acts that constitute offences, as clarified by section 67(…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Just And Equitable Compensation
• Protected Strike Immunity
• Unlawful Conduct During Strike
• Labour Relations Act Interpretation

Bata SA (Pty) Limited and Another v SACTWU obo Members and Others (DA4/2022)

Bata SA (Pty) Limited and Another v SACTWU obo Members and Others (DA4/2022) [2024] ZALAC 15; (2024) 45 ILJ 1541 (LAC); [2024] 8 BLLR 866 (LAC) (23 April 2024)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

DA4/2022

Judges

Waglay JP, Coppin JA, Savage AJA

The Labour Appeal Court held that section 198D of the Labour Relations Act does not empower the CCMA to grant substantive relief such as monetary awards or quantification of back pay in disputes concerning less favourable treatment of deemed employees. The section is intended to provide a process for determining the status of employment relationships and for granting declaratory relief regarding whether employees are deemed employees of the client and whether they have been treated less favourably. Once such declaratory relief is granted, aggrieved employees may pursue further remedies, inclu…

Source excerpt

• Temporary Employment Services
• Deemed Employment
• Unequal Treatment
• Ccma Jurisdiction
• Labour Relations Act Interpretation

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Trenstar (Pty) Ltd (CCT 105/22)

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Trenstar (Pty) Ltd (CCT 105/22) [2023] ZACC 11; (2023) 44 ILJ 1189 (CC); 2023 (7) BCLR 814 (CC); [2023] 7 BLLR 609 (CC); 2023 (4) SA 449 (CC) (18 April 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 105/22

Judges

Maya, Kollapen, Madlanga, Majiedt, Makgoka, Mathopo, Potterill, Rogers, Theron

The Constitutional Court held that section 76(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act does not permit an employer to use replacement labour during a lock-out once the strike has ended, whether by suspension or termination. The right to use replacement labour is confined to the duration of the strike; when employees tender their services and the strike ceases, the lock-out is no longer 'in response to a strike' and the employer may not use replacement labour. The Court rejected the distinction advanced by Trenstar between a suspended and terminated strike, finding that a strike exists only while the…

Source excerpt

• Replacement Labour
• Strike Suspension
• Lock Out
• Collective Bargaining
• Labour Relations Act Interpretation

Solidarity obo Members v Barloworld Equipment Southern Africa and Others (CCT 102/21)

Solidarity obo Members v Barloworld Equipment Southern Africa and Others (CCT 102/21) [2022] ZACC 15; (2022) 43 ILJ 1757 (CC); [2022] 9 BLLR 779 (CC); 2023 (1) BCLR 51 (CC) (6 May 2022)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 102/21

Judges

Madlanga, Madondo, Mhlantla, Majiedt, Pillay, Rogers, Theron, Tlaletsi, Tshiqi

The Constitutional Court dismissed Solidarity’s merits appeal in a retrenchment dispute, but set aside a costs order after finding the consultation process was meaningfully conducted.

• Retrenchment Procedure
• Meaningful Consultation
• Selection Criteria
• Employment Equity
• Costs Award
• Labour Relations Act Interpretation

Galperin v East London Hebrew Congregation and East London Chevra Kaddisha and Others (1340/2021)

Galperin v East London Hebrew Congregation and East London Chevra Kaddisha and Others (1340/2021) [2022] ZAECGHC 6 (18 January 2022)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

1340/2021

Judge

NMabenge

The High Court held that the Beth-Din’s refusal to hear an employment dispute was not administrative action under PAJA and dismissed the review with costs.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Jurisdiction Of Religious Tribunals
• Unfair Dismissal
• Labour Relations Act Interpretation
• Administrative-law
• Labour-law

NEHAWU obo Luphumulo v General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JR1285/17)

NEHAWU obo Luphumulo v General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JR1285/17) [2021] ZALCJHB 472 (17 March 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1285/17

Judge

GN Moshoana

The Labour Court held that the bargaining council lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute because the termination of employment occurred by operation of law under section 17 of the Public Services Act, not by an act of the employer as required by section 186 of the Labour Relations Act. The applicant was not dismissed within the meaning of the LRA, and therefore, no claim for unfair dismissal could be entertained. The correct approach for an employee whose termination is invalid is to demand a return to work or seek a declaratory order from a competent court, not to pursue an unfair dism…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of Bargaining Council
• Termination By Operation Of Law
• Unfair Dismissal
• Public Service Act
• Labour Relations Act Interpretation

NEHAWU obo James v General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JR1285/17)

NEHAWU obo James v General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JR1285/17) [2021] ZALCJHB 465 (16 March 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1285/17

Judge

GN Moshoana

The Labour Court held that a purported termination under section 17 of the PSA was by operation of law, not a dismissal under the LRA, so the bargaining council had no jurisdiction.

• Termination By Operation Of Law
• Jurisdiction Of Bargaining Council
• Unfair Dismissal
• Public Service Act
• Labour Relations Act Interpretation
• Termination-by-operation-of-law