South Africa Case Law

Solidarity obo Members v Western Cape Education Department (C2024/133773)

Solidarity obo Members v Western Cape Education Department (C2024/133773) [2024] ZALCCT 70 (3 December 2024)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C2024/133773

Judge

R Lagrange

The court found that the application was premature, as the department had not yet reached the stage of actively contemplating retrenchments. The process of declaring educators 'additional' and initiating matching and placement under CA 4 of 2016 did not trigger the obligation to consult under section 189 or 189A of the Labour Relations Act. The educators remained employed and retained their benefits, and no retrenchment process had commenced. The urgency claimed by Solidarity was not justified, and the timeframes imposed for answering were unreasonable. The dispute referred to the bargaining…

Source excerpt

• Operational Requirements Dismissal
• Retrenchment Consultation
• Collective Agreement Interpretation
• Urgency In Motion Proceedings

South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (SATAWU) and Another v Fidelity Security Services (Pty) (JS 284/14)

South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (SATAWU) and Another v Fidelity Security Services (Pty) (JS 284/14) [2022] ZALCJHB 11 (1 February 2022)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS 284/14

Judge

S B Nhlapo

The Labour Court refused leave to appeal in a retrenchment-consultation dispute, upholding that section 189 requires compliance with the statutory consultation hierarchy.

• Retrenchment Consultation
• Section 189 Lra
• Substantive Fairness
• Collective Bargaining
• Condonation
• Selection Criteria

Baloyi and Others v Kwathlano Shuttle & Chauffeur Service CC (JS410/2020)

Baloyi and Others v Kwathlano Shuttle & Chauffeur Service CC (JS410/2020) [2021] ZALCJHB 403 (26 October 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS410/2020

Judge

K Naidoo

The Labour Court held it lacked jurisdiction to hear an unfair dismissal and severance pay dispute because the applicants withdrew the CCMA referral and no conciliation occurred.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Retrenchment Consultation
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Conciliation Requirement
• Severance Pay
• Labour-law

National Education Health and Allied Workers Union (NEHAWU) obo Members and Others v Durban University of Technology (D542/2021)

National Education Health and Allied Workers Union (NEHAWU) obo Members and Others v Durban University of Technology (D542/2021) [2021] ZALCD 63 (30 September 2021)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D542/2021

Judge

Lagrange

The Labour Court dismissed an urgent section 189A application about retrenchments at Durban University of Technology, finding insufficient proof of procedural unfairness.

• Procedural Unfair Dismissal
• Retrenchment Consultation
• Section 189a Application
• Urgent Interdict
• Procedural-unfair-dismissal
• Retrenchment-consultation

Sibanye Gold Limited v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1380/19)

Sibanye Gold Limited v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1380/19) [2021] ZALCJHB 254; [2021] 11 BLLR 1153 (LC); (2021) 42 ILJ 2467 (LC) (23 August 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1380/19

Judge

Nkutha-Nkontwana

The Commissioner misconceived the nature of the enquiry by applying section 41 of the BCEA to a retrenchment package that was the product of agreement following section 189A consultation. The statutory minimum in section 41 BCEA applies only where no agreement exists for a higher amount. In this case, severance and notice pay were to be calculated on basic salary, and there was no agreement to include the acting allowance. The Commissioner erred in disregarding the binding agreement and including the acting allowance in the calculation. The award is reviewed and set aside to the extent that i…

Source excerpt

• Severance Pay
• Acting Allowance
• Retrenchment Consultation
• Basic Conditions Of Employment Act
• Arbitration Review

Manisi v Integritron Integrated Solutions (JS364/20)

Manisi v Integritron Integrated Solutions (JS364/20) [2021] ZALCJHB 231 (12 August 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS364/20

Judge

K Naidoo

The Labour Court granted condonation for a late statement of response, finding a reasonable Covid-19-related explanation, adequate prospects, and no decisive prejudice.

• Condonation
• Unfair Dismissal
• Procedural Fairness
• Automatic Unfair Dismissal
• Discrimination
• Retrenchment Consultation

South African Communication Union and Another v Telkom SA SOC Ltd (J203/2020)

South African Communication Union and Another v Telkom SA SOC Ltd (J203/2020) [2020] ZALCJHB 56; (2020) 41 ILJ 1425 (LC) (5 March 2020)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J203/2020

Judge

R G Lagrange

Labour Court dismissed an urgent section 189A(13) application over Telkom's opening of voluntary severance packages during retrenchment consultations.

• Retrenchment Consultation
• Section 189a Procedure
• Voluntary Severance Packages
• Procedural Fairness
• Urgent Interdict
• Retrenchment-consultation

National Union of Metal Metalworkers of South Africa and Another v Aveng Trident Steel (A Division of Aveng Africa Proprietary Limited) and Others (JA25/18)

National Union of Metal Metalworkers of South Africa and Another v Aveng Trident Steel (A Division of Aveng Africa Proprietary Limited) and Others (JA25/18) [2019] ZALAC 36; (2019) 40 ILJ 2024 (LAC); [2019] 9 BLLR 899 (LAC) (13 June 2019)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA25/18

Judges

Coppin, Murphy, Savage

The Labour Appeal Court held that the amendment to section 187(1)(c) of the LRA did not prohibit dismissals for operational requirements where employees refuse to accept changes to terms and conditions of employment. The Court reasoned that the true reason for dismissal must be determined by examining both factual and legal causation. In this case, Aveng's operational requirements were the dominant and proximate cause of the dismissals, not the mere refusal to accept a demand. The proposals for job restructuring and grade changes were alternatives to retrenchment, aimed at saving jobs and ens…

Source excerpt

• Automatically Unfair Dismissal
• Operational Requirements
• Collective Bargaining
• Retrenchment Consultation
• Section 187 1 C Lra
• Section 189 Lra

National Union of Mineworkers and Others v Anglo Gold Ashanti Limited and Another (J3627/18)

National Union of Mineworkers and Others v Anglo Gold Ashanti Limited and Another (J3627/18) [2018] ZALCJHB 385; [2019] 1 BLLR 54 (LC); (2019) 40 ILJ 407 (LC) (19 October 2018)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J3627/18

Judge

P Nkutha-Nkontwana

The court held that the section 197(6) agreement, concluded between Anglo Gold, JMCA, and majority trade unions, is a collective agreement as defined by section 213 of the LRA. The agreement was reached through a legitimate section 189A consultation process and is capable of extension to non-signatory unions and their members under section 23(1)(d), consistent with the majoritarianism principle. The Hospital is not a separate workplace for purposes of the LRA; rather, the South African Region constitutes the workplace, where NUM is a minority union. The applicants' argument that the agreement…

Source excerpt

• Collective Agreements
• Majoritarianism
• Section 197 Transfer
• Section 23 Extension
• Retrenchment Consultation
• Workplace Definition

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others v Anglo Gold Ashanti Limited and Another (J1968/18)

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others v Anglo Gold Ashanti Limited and Another (J1968/18) [2018] ZALCJHB 437 (28 June 2018)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1968/18

Judge

D Mahosi

The court found that AngloGold Ashanti Limited had valid collective agreements with recognised trade unions (NUM, Solidarity, UASA, AMCU) which set out the procedures for consultation in retrenchment processes. Section 189(1)(a) of the LRA requires consultation with parties to such collective agreements. NUMSA, not being a party to these agreements, is not entitled to be consulted under the statutory hierarchy unless the agreements do not cover the retrenchment procedure. The agreements in question provided for consultation over matters of mutual interest, including dismissals for operational…

Source excerpt

• Retrenchment Consultation
• Collective Agreement
• Locus Standi
• Mootness
• Costs Award