Skip to main content

Article 20/2022

Previous articles focussed on the principle that the assessment criteria for appointment in a restructured position are not equivalent to selection criteria envisaged by s189 and s189A of the LRA [e.g. Article 16/2022]. 

What are the principles extracted from Telkom SA Soc Ltd v Van Staden (2021) 32 SALLR 8 (LAC); (2021) 42 ILJ 869 (LAC), SA Breweries (Pty) Ltd v Louw (2017) 28 SALLR 71 (LAC) and Pratten v Afrisun KZN (Pty) Ltd (2020) 31 SALLR 159 (LC) that govern such process?

_____________________________________

  • it is not unfair to require employees to compete in a placement process as part of the restructuring exercise entailing organisational structure changes, adjusting and streamlining roles and positions, etc
  • when competing for such positions, the employer is entitled to take into account both technical competencies and behavioural competencies and the criteria to determine such competencies are not selection criteria in terms of s189(2)(b) read with s189(7) of the LRA
  • however, the entire process, even though not constituting selection criteria, is subject to judicial scrutiny, which entails, inter alia, the following:
  • the labour court is entitled to scrutinise the entire placement process and decisions to determine if they are fair
  • the labour court, however, is not entitled to decide (i) what process it would have adopted and (ii) what placement decisions it would have preferred
  • the labour court is entitled to determine whether the process was subjective or not, arbitrary, capricious or inconsistent
  • when an employee is not placed on a competitive basis, only then do selection criteria for dismissal in terms of s189(7) of the LRA ‘kick in’, which must either be agreed upon or fair and objective
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)?