South Africa Case Law

HeroTel (Pty) Ltd v Moses and Others (CA05/2024)

HeroTel (Pty) Ltd v Moses and Others (CA05/2024) [2025] ZALAC 42 (10 July 2025)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

CA05/2024

Judges

Savage, Waglay, Musi

The court found that the rationale for retrenchment advanced by Fusion was misleading and did not reflect the true reason for the dismissals. The evidence showed that Fusion transferred key business units and revenue streams to the appellant, creating a self-induced financial crisis. The failure to disclose audited financial statements and other financial information undermined the consultation process and prevented the affected employees from challenging the rationale or proposing alternatives. The selection criteria were not agreed upon, and no objective evidence supported their fairness. T…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Retrenchment
• Operational Requirements
• Selection Criteria
• Consultation Process
• Disclosure Of Information

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others v Chabo and Joubert Air Conditioning (Pty) Ltd (JS432/20)

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others v Chabo and Joubert Air Conditioning (Pty) Ltd (JS432/20) [2025] ZALCJHB 255 (26 June 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS432/20

Judge

M Makhura

The Labour Court found a retrenchment substantively unfair for lack of meaningful consultation, rational basis, and fair selection criteria. Reinstatement and compensation were ordered.

• Retrenchment
• Section 189a Consultation
• Selection Criteria
• Substantive Fairness
• Compensation And Reinstatement
• Remedies For Unfair Dismissal

LEWUSA obo Maesela and Others v RGM Cranes (Pty) Ltd (JS863/21)

LEWUSA obo Maesela and Others v RGM Cranes (Pty) Ltd (JS863/21) [2025] ZALCJHB 173 (29 April 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS863/21

Judge

Molotsi

The court found that the respondent failed to comply with the substantive and procedural requirements for dismissal based on operational requirements. The consultation process was not meaningful or joint consensus-seeking, as required by section 189 of the Labour Relations Act. The respondent did not adequately consider or discuss alternatives to retrenchment, nor did it provide sufficient disclosure of relevant information to the applicants and their union. The selection criteria used were not fair or objective, being influenced by factors such as salary levels, medical conditions, and alleg…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Retrenchment
• Selection Criteria
• Consultation Process
• Operational Requirements
• Reinstatement

Duverge v Spanish Farm Guest Lodge CC ta Sky Villa Boutique Hotel (C04/24; C252/2024)

Duverge v Spanish Farm Guest Lodge CC ta Sky Villa Boutique Hotel (C04/24; C252/2024) [2025] ZALCCT 24 (11 April 2025)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C04/2024 / C252/2024

Judge

Daniels

The Labour Court found Duverge’s retrenchment by Sky Villa was procedurally and substantively unfair and awarded eight months’ compensation plus unpaid statutory monies.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Retrenchment
• Selection Criteria
• Bumping
• Severance Pay
• Procedural Fairness

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

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

Mahlangu v Travel with Flair (Pty) Ltd (Reasons) (JS218/21)

Mahlangu v Travel with Flair (Pty) Ltd (Reasons) (JS218/21) [2025] ZALCJHB 270 (29 January 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS218/21

Judge

M T M Phehane

The Labour Court held that the retrenchment dismissal was procedurally and substantively fair, finding agreed selection criteria were applied and an alternative role was refused.

• Retrenchment
• Section 189 Consultation
• Selection Criteria
• Procedural Fairness
• Substantive Fairness
• Alternative Employment Offer

Maqengu v Servest (Pty) Ltd (JS252/20)

Maqengu v Servest (Pty) Ltd (JS252/20) [2024] ZALCJHB 530 (5 November 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS252/20

Judge

M T M Phehane

The Labour Court held that a retrenchment dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair, and dismissed the referral with costs.

• Retrenchment
• Operational Requirements Dismissal
• Section 189 Consultation
• Selection Criteria
• Severance Pay
• Costs Award

Bongoza and Others v Adcorp Blu A Divion of Fulfilment & Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (D60/2020)

Bongoza and Others v Adcorp Blu A Divion of Fulfilment & Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (D60/2020) [2024] ZALCD 41 (4 November 2024)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D60/2020

Judge

K Allen-Yaman

The Labour Court held that the retrenchments were substantively fair because National Brands proved operational need, and the applicants’ deemed-employment argument failed.

• Retrenchment
• Operational Requirements
• Selection Criteria
• Deemed Employment
• Section 189a Procedure
• Equal Treatment

Van Haght v JBS Building CO (Pty) Ltd (C95/2023)

Van Haght v JBS Building CO (Pty) Ltd (C95/2023) [2024] ZALCCT 37; (2024) 45 ILJ 2629 (LC) (6 September 2024)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C95/2023

Judge

Meyerowitz

The court found that the company had been operating at a loss for nearly two years, making the decision to restructure and render certain positions redundant rational and reasonable. The applicant's position as HR manager was unique, and no selection criteria were required. The retrenchment process complied with section 189 of the LRA, and the company offered the applicant an alternative position, which she declined. The applicant's claim of personal animosity was unsupported by evidence and did not constitute the proximate cause of dismissal. The company failed to pay the applicant for the f…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Retrenchment
• Operational Requirements
• Notice Pay
• Procedural Fairness
• Selection Criteria