Skip to main content

Article 38/2022

What are the remedies available to a successful applicant in an unfair labour practice dispute and how is compensation calculated in this regard?

_____________________________________

Application of s193(4) of the LRA

  • the arbitrator is required to determine the dispute on terms that are reasonable and same may include reinstatement, re-employment or compensation

Application of s193(2) of the LRA

  • The primary relief is reinstatement or re-employment unless in terms of s193(2)(c) of the LRA:
  • the employee does not wish for it or
  • continued employment is intolerable or
  • reinstatement or re-employment is not reasonably practicable or
  • the dismissal is only procedurally unfair

Application of s194(4) of the LRA

  • compensation must be just and equitable in all circumstances but amount to no more than 12 months’ remuneration

Calculation when awarding compensation

  • it is indeed compensation for non-patrimonial loss and the jurisprudence relating to the award of a solatium in respect of the Actio Iniuriarum is relevant (Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development v Tshishonga (2009) 30 ILJ 1799 (LAC)
  • compensation is designed to ‘…compensate the person who has suffered an attack on his or her dignity and reputation or an onslaught on his or her humanity’ – Tshishonga judgment (supra)

The following factors are relevant in this regard:

  • the seriousness of the infringement on the dignity
  • the nature and extent of the publication
  • the reputation of the employee
  • the motives and conduct of the employer (Tshishonga judgment (supra); Mogale and Others v Seima 2008 (5) SA 637 (SCA))

The following guidelines should be applied when calculating compensation:

  • the award must attempt to place the employee in the position he/she would have been in had it not been for the unfair labour practice
  • the award must be reasonable and fair in all circumstances
  • however, there is a duty on the employee to mitigate damages (Solidarity obo Kerns v Mudau NO (2007) 28 ILJ 1146 (LC); Ferodo (Pty) Ltd v De Ruiter (1993) 14 ILJ 974 (LAC))
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)?