Skip to main content

Article 13/2022

What are the stages identified when a restructuring exercise has been undertaken in the scenario where employees compete for new positions in such restructured organisation?

_____________________________________

In Pratten v Afrisun KZN (Pty) Ltd (2020) 31 SALLR 159 (LC), the labour court identified the following stages:

stages 1 and 2

  • during these stages, compliance with minimum criteria (e.g. minimum qualifications, applicable minimum experience, etc) are to be established
  • only those employees who comply with such minimum criteria are to be assessed in the assessment process where behavioural competencies are to be determined
  • those employees who do not comply with the said minimum criteria, do not participate in the subsequent stages and fall out of the process, subject to the employer attempting to find alternative employment

stage 3

  • only those employees who comply with the aforesaid minimum criteria are to proceed to stage 3, which stage entails, in essence, the assessment of behavioural competencies of such employees, in a ranking system (by means of psychometric testing)

stage 4

  • the results of stage 3 will determine whether or not employees are placed
  • should an employee fall out on the basis of such results, the employer will attempt to find alternative employment for the employee
  • however, successful candidates will only be placed if they accept the terms and conditions attached to the new restructured positions – if they do not accept such terms and conditions, they fall out of the process, subject to the employer attempting to find alternative employment
November 9, 2026

Section 187(1)(f) of the LRA reads as follows: ‘A dismissal is automatically unfair if the reason for the dismissal is that the employer unfairly discriminated against the employee, directly or indirectly, on any arbitrary ground, including but not limited to religion, conscience and belief”.

In terms of s187(2)(a) of the LRA, despite the aforesaid s187(1)(f), a dismissal may be fair if the reason for the dismissal is based on the inherent requirements of a particular job.

What approach is to be followed to determine, firstly, whether the reason for the dismissal on the basis of religion, conscience or belief is based upon an inherent requirement of a particular job?

And, secondly, what approach is to be followed to determine whether or not an employer complied with its duty to reasonably accommodate the aforesaid category of employees?

November 2, 2026

In the previous article, we set out the traditional approach to s187(2)(b) of the LRA, covering the scenario where an employee reached the normal or agreed-upon retirement age, but continued to work beyond such age. The constitutional court, in Motor Industry Staff Association and Another v Great South Auto Body CC t/a Great South Panelbeaters (Landman); Solidarity obo Strydom and Others v State Information Technology Agency Soc Ltd (Solidarity) – combinedly referred to as Landman; Solidarity – had the opportunity to scrutinise such traditional approach and delivered three conflicting judgments. So, what approach should role players now employ, seeing that consensus was not reached in the constitutional court?

October 26, 2026

In terms of s187(1)(f) of the LRA, a dismissal is automatically unfair if the reason for the dismissal is that the employer unfairly discriminated against the employee, directly or indirectly, on any arbitrary ground, including, but not limited to, age.

In terms of s187(2)(b) of the LRA, despite s187(1)(f), dismissal, based on age, is fair if the employee has reached the normal or agreed retirement age for persons employed in that capacity.

What is the approach traditionally adopted where an employer permits an employee to work beyond the normal or agreed-upon retirement age and subsequently wishes to terminate the services of the employee, based on age, and wishes to rely on the defence as set out in s187(2)(b)?