Skip to main content

Article 20/2026

Within what time period must a party or parties to a plant level collective agreement refer a dispute, concerning the interpretation or application of such plant level collective agreement, to the CCMA for resolution?

_____________________________________

  • The leading case in this regard is MEC for Health, KwaZulu-Natal v King (King) (Case No D2110/18).
  • At paragraph [48] of the King judgment, the following was stated:
    • with reference to Hospersa obo Tshambi v Department of Health, KZN [2016] 7 BLLR 649 (LAC), the court held that, despite s24 of the LRA not prescribing the period within which an interpretation or application dispute must be referred to the CCMA, such dispute must be referred within a reasonable time
    • so, what is reasonable? – s191(1) of the LRA provides the yardstick to test what is a reasonable time – the maximum period of 90 days to refer a dispute relating to unfair conduct on the part of the employer constitutes a reasonable time
    • if the dispute is referred outside such yardstick, an application for condonation must be made
    • to determine whether or not a dispute regarding the interpretation or application of a plant level collective agreement was referred within a reasonable time, the following factors must, inter alia, be considered:
      • the nature of the dispute referred
      • the history of the engagement between the parties on the subject matter of the dispute
      • the time elapsed in attempting to resolve the matter
      • the time it took the party who referred the dispute, with reference to the period after the parties ceased to engage regarding the dispute
    • in short, the whole period covering the dispute regarding the interpretation or application of the plant level agreement must be explained and accounted for

Concluding remarks

  • From the above, it is apparent that a reasonable time period is applicable within which a dispute regarding the interpretation or application of a plant level collective agreement must be referred to the CCMA.
  • And what happens if such reasonable time period has not been complied with – according to the King judgment (supra), an application for condonation must be brought. However, herein lies a further problem not dealt with in such judgment, namely, on what statutory provision can a commissioner of the CCMA rely when considering such an application for condonation?  In our view, there is currently no provision in the LRA granting the CCMA the jurisdiction to deal with such applications for condonation.
October 19, 2026

Section 41(2) of the BCEA regulates the entitlement of an employee, dismissed for reasons based on the employer’s operational requirements, to severance pay.

In terms of s41(4) of the BCEA, an employee, who unreasonably refused to accept the employer’s offer of alternative employment with that employer or any other employer, is not entitled to severance pay ito s41(2).

How does the assistance provided by the retrenching employer to a retrenched employee affect such employee’s entitlement to severance pay?

October 12, 2026

What is the short test to be applied to determine whether there is compliance with the reasonable decision-maker test?

When determining whether or not the arbitrator of the CCMA or bargaining council behaved like a reasonable decision-maker, what are the ‘questions to be asked’?

What is the test recently applied to determine whether an arbitration award should be set aside on review?

October 5, 2026

In the scenario where a group of employees, participating in a demonstration, picket, strike, etc, are participating in unlawful conduct, but a number of other employees, who are also participating in such demonstration, picket, strike, etc, are not participating in such unlawful conduct, will the employer be entitled to obtain an interdict against both groups of such employees?