Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Masha v Zizwe Opencast Mining (Pty) Ltd (JS188/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 337 (6 August 2025)
The Labour Court dismissed an application for condonation after finding the applicant’s delay in filing the statement of case was excessive and inadequately explained.
Zwane v Nqatshana Holdings (Pty) Ltd (JS04/2025) [2025] ZALCJHB 220 (13 June 2025)
The Labour Court dismissed a special plea of res judicata, finding the applicant was not a party to the settlement agreement relied on by the respondent.
Nagapan v Yum Restaurants International (Pty) Ltd ta KFC (JS227/21) [2025] ZALCJHB 292 (25 March 2025)
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
Bothma v SG Coal (Pty) Ltd (JS 662/21) [2024] ZALCJHB 354 (5 September 2024)
The Labour Court held that Bothma’s retrenchment for operational requirements was substantively fair and dismissed the dispute with no costs order.
WBHO Construction Proprietary Limited v Masenye N.O and Others (JR1124.21) [2024] ZALCJHB 288 (30 July 2024)
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.
Amalungelo Workers' Unions obo Jabulani and Others v Cilliers N.O and Others (JR 245/20) [2023] ZALCJHB 340 (29 November 2023)
Labour Court review of a CCMA jurisdiction ruling. Condonation was granted, but the review failed because the workers’ contracts had expired or the dispute concerned retrenchment.
South African Municipal Workers Union Obo Madlala and Others v UGU South Coast Tourism (Pty) Ltd (D 530/2020) [2023] ZALCD 11 (14 June 2023)
The Labour Court held that the retrenchment was not procedurally unfair because SAMWU derailed the section 189 consultation and withdrew from meaningful engagement.
South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (SATAWU) and Another v Fidelity Security Services (Pty) (JS 284/14) [2022] ZALCJHB 11 (1 February 2022)
The Labour Court refused leave to appeal in a retrenchment-consultation dispute, upholding that section 189 requires compliance with the statutory consultation hierarchy.
National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa and Others v SGB Cape (JS779/18) [2021] ZALCJHB 438 (8 November 2021)
The court found that the applicants failed to establish that their dismissal was unfair. The respondent provided relevant financial information—the management accounts for the Secunda branch—which was sufficient for consultation. The insistence by NUMSA on audited financial statements for the entire group was unreasonable, as such documents were irrelevant to the branch-specific retrenchment and confidential. NUMSA refused to participate in further consultations unless its demand was met, despite being aware of the statutory remedy under section 16 of the LRA to obtain information, which it d…
Source excerpt
National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) obo Members and Another v South African Airways (SOC) Ltd and Others (J149/20) [2020] ZALCJHB 53; [2020] 6 BLLR 594 (LC) (20 February 2020)
The court held that the applicants failed to meet the statutory test for leave to appeal as set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. There were no reasonable prospects that the Labour Appeal Court would reach a different conclusion regarding the duty to consult under section 189(1) of the LRA, as the prevailing legal position is that consultation is required only when dismissal is the preferred option. The alleged conflicting judgment did not address the same legal question, and the issue of attrition versus retrenchment was not material to the present matter. The refusal to admit…
Source excerpt
Explore more
