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
Mthembu and Others v Snackworks and Another (D505/2021) [2025] ZALCD 29 (29 July 2025)
The Labour Court dismissed an application to retrieve an archived file, finding the delay was inadequately explained and the applicants lacked prospects of success.
Arcelormittal South Africa v National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa and Others (2024/130792) [2024] ZALCJHB 449; [2025] 2 BLLR 195 (LC); (2025) 46 ILJ 595 (LC) (15 November 2024)
The Labour Court held that NUMSA’s post-retrenchment strike was protected under section 189A(7) and section 64 of the LRA, and dismissed the interdict application.
Mziba v Osborn Engineered Products SA (Pty) Ltd (JS110-21) [2024] ZALCJHB 528 (5 June 2024)
The Court found that the retrenchment agreement was a collective agreement as defined by section 213 of the LRA and that the jurisdictional facts for extension under section 23(1)(d) were satisfied. The applicant was identified in the agreement, expressly bound by its terms, and the majority unions were parties. The inclusion of non-unionised employees did not alter the agreement's character. The principle of majoritarianism and the objectives of the LRA—orderly collective bargaining, labour peace, and workplace democratisation—supported the binding nature of the agreement. The applicant's co…
Source excerpt
Rachoene and Others v G4S Secure Solutions (Pty) Ltd (J3933/18) [2024] ZALCJHB 136 (18 March 2024)
The court found that the applicants' dismissal was substantively fair. The respondent lost a major contract, resulting in the redundancy of the applicants' positions. The respondent complied with section 189A of the LRA, offering alternative positions to all affected employees and communicating these opportunities through written notices and consultations. The applicants either failed or refused to apply for these positions, despite being qualified and able to avoid retrenchment. Their reasons for not applying were found to be unjustified and lacking credibility. The court held that the appli…
Source excerpt
VWSACRU obo Members v SG Coal (Pty) Ltd (JS906/20) [2024] ZALCJHB 15 (10 January 2024)
The Labour Court held that the retrenchment of 12 employees was substantively fair after a major client’s force majeure halted operations and employees offered no alternatives.
Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union and Others v Piet Wes Civils CC and Others (J2845/2016) [2023] ZALCJHB 160 (25 May 2023)
The court found that the contempt order granted by Nkuta-Nkotwana J was both coercive and punitive, requiring compliance with the original reinstatement order and imposing a fine for non-compliance. However, the order did not specify ongoing consequences for continued non-compliance after payment of the fine. The respondents paid the fine after raising the necessary funds and engaging with the registrar regarding payment modalities. The court held that the payment of the fine purged the contempt and that the papers did not disclose any wilful or mala fide non-compliance with the terms of the…
Source excerpt
South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union v Massdiscounters (Pty) Ltd and Another (J 675/21) [2021] ZALCJHB 178 (3 August 2021)
The Labour Court refused leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons on non-joinder, facilitation, or costs.
South African Transport and Allied Workers Union and Others v Ikapa Coaches (a division of Cullinan Holdings Ltd) and Others (J683/2020) [2020] ZALCJHB 148; (2021) 42 ILJ 894 (LC) (2 September 2020)
The Labour Court restrained retrenchment notices and ordered fresh consultation after finding no consultation had taken place before termination notices were issued.
Anderson and Others v Global Media Services (C250/18 & C267/18) [2020] ZALCCT 22 (25 August 2020)
The Labour Court granted an employer’s application to amend its reply to rely on section 189A of the LRA, finding no prejudice to the employees.
Seakhoe v Pepkor Trading (Pty) Ltd (J2619/17) [2020] ZALCJHB 151 (20 August 2020)
The Labour Court refused condonation for a five-year-late unfair dismissal referral, finding the delay inordinate, the explanation inadequate, and no prospects of success.
Explore more
