Article 27/2023

What are the potential remedies should a dismissal be substantively or substantively and procedurally unfair?

Is there a difference between such remedies if the dismissal is for misconduct or incapacity, as
opposed to operational requirements or automatically unfair dismissals?

What is the potential relief if the dismissal is only substantively unfair?

What was the approach adopted by the constitutional court?

_____________________________________

The labour appeal court, in SA Teachers Union obo Kruger v Gauteng Department of Education (2021) 32 SALLR 12 (LAC); (2021) 42 ILJ 827 (LAC), identified the following scenarios:

Scenario 1: the dismissal on the basis of misconduct or incapacity is substantively or substantively and procedurally unfair

  • the primary relief is reinstatement or re-employment, entailing:
    • the resumption of employment on the same terms and conditions as at the date of dismissal
    • the arbitrator has a discretion in respect of retrospectivity, with the limitation that it cannot be
      fixed earlier than the actual date of dismissal

(Equity Aviation Services v CCMA 2009 (1) SA 390 (CC), SACCAWU v Woolworths (2019) 40 ILJ 87 (CC), Sibiya v SAPS (2022) 33 SALLR 28 (LAC))

  • the alternative remedy is compensation

Scenario 2: the dismissal is on the basis of operational requirements or being automatically unfair and is found to be substantively or substantively and procedurally unfair

  • what is stated above under scenario 1 is equally applicable here, mutatis mutandis
  • however, in terms of s193(3) of the LRA, in addition, any other order considered to be
    appropriate may be made

Scenario 3: the dismissal is for misconduct, incapacity, operational requirements or being
automatically unfair, but is procedurally only branded as unfair

  • in terms of s193(2)(d) of the LRA, no reinstatement or re-employment is appropriate, but only
    compensation
  • the only exception to the above is s189A(13) of the LRA, where reinstatement may be ordered to
    ensure a procedurally fair operational requirements dismissal in terms of s189A of the LRA
June 12, 2025

In terms of s34(1) of the BCEA, an employer may not make deductions from an employee’s remuneration unless, subject to s34(2), the employee agrees, in writing, or the deduction is made in terms of a law, collective agreement, court order or arbitration award.

June 5, 2025

A case is moot and therefore not justiciable if it no longer presents an existing or live controversy. With reference to National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others [1999] ZACC 17; 2000 (2) SA 1 (CC), how did the supreme court of appeal, in Mhlontlo Local Municipality and Others v Ngcangula and Another (2024) 35 SALLR 132 (SCA) recently deal with this issue?

May 29, 2025

The principle underlying the doctrine of peremption is that no person can be allowed to take up two positions inconsistent with one another, or, as is commonly expressed, to blow hot and cold, to approbate and reprobate when considering pursuing litigation. With reference to Qoboshiyane NO v Avusa Publishing Eastern Cape [2012] ZASCA 166; 2013 (3) SA 315 (SCA), what is the test to be applied to determine whether or not a party has perempted its right to institute legal proceedings?