This information is published for general information purposes and is not intended to constitute legal advice and should not be construed as such. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to any particular situation. Maserumule Corporate Employment Law will accept no responsibility for any actions taken or not taken on the basis of this publication. Consent must be obtained from Maserumule Corporate Employment Law before the information provided herein is reproduced in any way. No person shall have any claim of any nature whatsoever arising out of, or in connection with, the information provided herein against Maserumule Corporate Employment Law and/or any of its personnel.
Retrenchments are among the most carefully scrutinised forms of dismissal in South African labour law. The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA) permits employers to dismiss employees for operational requirements, but only where such dismissals are both substantively and procedurally fair.
When does a resignation become legally binding? Can an employee who verbally resigns complete with an apologetic chocolate bar later claim they were unfairly dismissed? This very question came before the Labour Court in Vericred Collections (Pty) Ltd v Moloto and Others1. At the heart of the dispute was
In today’s high-pressure work environments, performance pressure and expectations are often stringent, particularly in industries requiring tight deadlines and large-scale project execution. Explore how the Samson v CCMA case clarifies the line between poor incapacity: performance and misconduct — and what employers must prove before disciplining staff for operational failures.
Retrenchment, when used genuinely and transparently, is a lawful mechanism for employers to navigate economic challenges and adapt to changing business needs. However, when used as a smokescreen to disguise retaliatory dismissals, it becomes a tool of exploitation, undermining the very essence of fairness and justice entrenched in South African labour law.
In the reportable judgment of National Lotteries Commission v Mafonjo and Another, the Labour Court addressed what it described as an “incongruent ruling” on sanction. The Court set aside the chairperson’s decision and substituted it with an order of dismissal with immediate effect.