Tag: Labour Court

Angry employers too often fire errant employees in anger. However, there is no place for anger in the implementation of discipline. This is because the resultant hasty action is likely to trip the employer up at the CCMA. This risk is central when firing employees in anger. A case in point is that of Marcel Pharmacy (Pty) Ltd vs Justine Afrika (SAFLII 11 March 2026, Labour Court case NO: C337/2023). Here, the employee switched off the lights of the pharmacy where she worked.

While alcohol-related offences can sometimes merit dismissal, this is not always the case. For example, where the employee has clinically been shown to be an alcoholic, treatment rather than punishment should be implemented. This is due to the employee’s incapacity. However, incapacity is not the only factor that could render such a dismissal unfair.

When an employee has been unfairly dismissed, the Labour Relations Act (LRA) prescribes reinstatement as the remedy. The employer can depart from this only if it shows good reason. Full reinstatement requires the employer to pay the employee all remuneration accrued between the date of dismissal and the date of reinstatement.

In Mqikela vs Pristo Response Trading, the South African Labour Court found that a supposed retrenchment had masked the real reason for dismissal. The employee had referred an unfair labour practice (ULP) dispute to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). This case exemplifies an automatic dismissal due to ULP.

A recent Labour Court judgment confirms that where employers fail to properly address grievances or mitigate the cause of an employee’s complaint, a constructive dismissal claim may succeed. In Makombe vs Cape Conference of the Seventh Day Adventists and Others, the Labour Court found that a pastor employed by the Cape Conference of Seventh Day Adventists (Cape Conference) experienced constructive dismissal.

In the recent case of SMD Technologies (Pty) Ltd v Tavares and Another ([2024] ZALCJHB 546), the Labour Court upheld the enforceability of restraint of trade agreements in South African employment law. The court emphasised that these restraints must be reasonable and must protect legitimate business interests.

To have a chance of winning a case at the Labour Court, a party must present proof to the judge. In the case of Malekunutu vs Joburg Bolt (Lex Info 17 January 2025. Labour Court case number JR1806/21), the employee faced retrenchment. The employer claimed financial difficulties as the reason for this decision.

When an employee proves that their resignation was not voluntary but forced by the employer’s conduct, it becomes a constructive dismissal. In the case of Makombe vs Cape Conference of the Seventh Day Adventists (Lex Info, 28 March 2025, Labour Court case number CO4/2023), Makombe - a female pastor - raised several workplace complaints.

In South Africa, labour law is designed to protect employees from unfair dismissal. The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) requires employers to tread carefully, especially when navigating fixed-term contract terms.  

In Bithrey vs Department of Health, Gauteng (Lex Info, 7 October 2024, Case number JR1478/22, Labour Court), Bithrey worked as a registrar. The employer appointed her to perform clinical work at one of its hospitals. It also required her to enroll at Pretoria University for a period of five years.