South Africa Case Law

Nagapan v Yum Restaurants International (Pty) Ltd ta KFC (JS227/21)

Nagapan v Yum Restaurants International (Pty) Ltd ta KFC (JS227/21) [2025] ZALCJHB 292 (25 March 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS227/21

Judge

M T M Phehane

The Court found that the respondent failed to provide sufficient notice and information to the applicant and other affected employees to enable meaningful consultation as required by section 189 of the Labour Relations Act and the Code of Good Practice. The first consultation meeting was held on the same day as the section 189(3) notice, amounting to an ambush and denying employees the opportunity to prepare. Subsequent meetings were brief and did not allow for proper engagement with the proposed structure or selection criteria. The respondent did not provide reasons for rejecting detailed co…

Source excerpt

• Retrenchment Procedure
• Selection Criteria
• Meaningful Consultation
• Compensation For Unfair Dismissal
• Preferential Rehiring
• Section 189 Lra

Janynarayan and Others v Fugro Survey Africa (Pty) Ltd (CA 04/2024)

Janynarayan and Others v Fugro Survey Africa (Pty) Ltd (CA 04/2024) [2025] ZALCCT 18 (6 March 2025)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

CA 04/2024

Judges

Savage, Waglay, Davis

The Labour Appeal Court dismissed an appeal against a compensation award for unfair retrenchment, finding no basis to interfere with the trial court’s discretion.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Retrenchment Procedure
• Compensation Award
• Operational Requirements
• Unfair-dismissal
• Retrenchment

Buthelezi and Others v Mabotwana Security Services (JS821/22)

Buthelezi and Others v Mabotwana Security Services (JS821/22) [2025] ZALCJHB 75 (28 February 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS821/22

Judge

Molotsi

The respondent failed to comply with section 189 of the Labour Relations Act by not consulting the applicants or providing sufficient information regarding the retrenchment. The purported operational requirements were not genuine, as the real reason for dismissal was the client's demand. The respondent did not investigate alternatives or engage in a joint consensus-seeking process. The dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair. The applicants are entitled to compensation as the respondent's conduct was callous and provided contradictory reasons for dismissal. A just and equitab…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Retrenchment Procedure
• Section 189 Consultation
• Compensation For Unfair Dismissal

Nutrichem (Pty) Ltd v Southern African Clothing and Textile Workers Union and Another (JA47/2023)

Nutrichem (Pty) Ltd v Southern African Clothing and Textile Workers Union and Another (JA47/2023) [2025] ZALAC 13 (26 February 2025)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA47/2023

Judges

Nkutha-Nkontwana JA, Musi AJA, Mooki AJA

The Labour Appeal Court found that the dismissals were automatically unfair under section 187(1)(d) of the Labour Relations Act. The evidence demonstrated that the true reason for dismissal was the employees' union membership and participation in union activities, particularly following the letter of 20 May 2019, rather than operational requirements. The appellant failed to consult the union properly, did not apply fair or objective selection criteria, and increased the number of retrenched employees to include all union members. The Court rejected the appellant's jurisdictional challenge, no…

Source excerpt

• Automatically Unfair Dismissal
• Trade Union Rights
• Section 187 Lra
• Retrenchment Procedure
• Selection Criteria
• Reinstatement

Modise v Road Accident Fund (102594/2024)

Modise v Road Accident Fund (102594/2024) [2024] ZALCJHB 489 (3 December 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

102594/2024

Judge

M Kumalo

The court found that the Respondent failed to comply with the procedural requirements for retrenchment under section 189 and 189A of the Labour Relations Act. The Applicants were placed on lengthy precautionary suspensions and were only notified of redundancy two years after the initial retrenchment process was purportedly commenced. The Respondent did not provide evidence of proper consultation or outcomes of the process, nor did it furnish the Applicants with the required information. The court held that the Applicants were entitled to urgent relief to prevent retrenchment prior to proper c…

Source excerpt

• Retrenchment Procedure
• Precautionary Suspension
• Section 189a Consultation
• Urgent Interdict

Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union and Another v Edge Line Engineering (Pty) Ltd (Application for Leave to Appeal) (JS808/19)

Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union and Another v Edge Line Engineering (Pty) Ltd (Application for Leave to Appeal) (JS808/19) [2024] ZALCJHB 326 (30 August 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS808/19

Judge

L M Morgan

Leave to appeal was refused in a labour matter about retrenchments, with the court finding no reasonable prospect of success or compelling reason to hear the appeal.

• Operational Requirements Dismissal
• Substantive Fairness
• Retrenchment Procedure
• Leave To Appeal
• Reasonable Prospect Of Success
• Leave-to-appeal

WBHO Construction Proprietary Limited v Masenye N.O and Others (JR1124.21)

WBHO Construction Proprietary Limited v Masenye N.O and Others (JR1124.21) [2024] ZALCJHB 288 (30 July 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1124/21

Judge

S.S Tebeile

Labour Court review of a dismissal dispute dismissed. The court held that a mutual separation agreement could not be used to evade section 189 retrenchment procedures.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Retrenchment Procedure
• Mutual Separation Agreement
• Section 189 Lra
• Procedural Fairness
• Substantive Fairness

National Union for All Sectors and Others v 3 Sixty Life (Pty) Ltd and Others (C171/24)

National Union for All Sectors and Others v 3 Sixty Life (Pty) Ltd and Others (C171/24) [2024] ZALCCT 24; (2024) 45 ILJ 1841 (LC) (12 June 2024)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C171/24

Judge

T Gandidze

The court held that section 189A of the Labour Relations Act applies only to large-scale retrenchments where the employer contemplates retrenching at least ten employees. In this case, the first respondent employed more than fifty employees but only four were affected by the retrenchment, and one employee had been retrenched in the preceding twelve months. The applicants did not contest these figures. Therefore, section 189A did not apply to the retrenchment process, and the applicants could not seek relief under section 189A(13)(d). Compensation under section 194 is only available once proce…

Source excerpt

• Retrenchment Procedure
• Section 189a Application
• Compensation For Unfair Dismissal
• Fixed Term Contracts
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court

Regenesys Management (Pty) Ltd t/a Regenesys v Ilunga and Others (CCT 220/22)

Regenesys Management (Pty) Ltd t/a Regenesys v Ilunga and Others (CCT 220/22) [2024] ZACC 8; 2024 (7) BCLR 901 (CC); [2024] 8 BLLR 777 (CC); (2024) 45 ILJ 1723 (CC); 2024 (5) SA 593 (CC) (21 May 2024)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 220/22

Judges

Zondo CJ, Maya DCJ, Kollapen J, Mathopo J, Rogers J, Schippers AJ, Theron J, Tshiqi J, Van Zyl AJ

The Constitutional Court held that the Labour Court retains jurisdiction under section 189A(13) to adjudicate disputes about the procedural fairness of dismissals for operational requirements for large employers, and that compensation under section 189A(13)(d) is a valid standalone remedy when reinstatement or other remedies are inappropriate. The Court found that Regenesys failed to comply with fair procedure in consulting and selecting employees for retrenchment, and that the Labour Appeal Court erred in setting aside the Labour Court's orders of reinstatement and compensation. The Court cl…

Source excerpt

• Retrenchment Procedure
• Procedural Fairness
• Compensation For Unfair Dismissal
• Labour Relations Act
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Reinstatement

Modipa v Road Accident Fund (J942/23)

Modipa v Road Accident Fund (J942/23) [2023] ZALCJHB 225 (10 July 2023)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J942/23

Judge

Lallie

The court found that the correct test for urgency in applications under section 189A(13) of the LRA is the statutory one provided in section 189A(17)(a), not the general test under rule 8. The applicant received lawful notice of termination on 25 April 2023, as the letter provided two months' notice pay in lieu of notice, in compliance with the BCEA. The subsequent correspondence did not withdraw or negate the original notice. The application was launched more than 30 days after the notice was given, and the applicant failed to show good cause for condonation of the delay. The authorities cit…

Source excerpt

• Retrenchment Procedure
• Section 189a Application
• Urgency In Labour Court
• Notice Period Requirements