Skip to main content

Article 39/2024

LabourEdge

What is the approach to be adopted by an individual employee claiming that his/her employer has unilaterally changed the terms and/or conditions of employment applicable to him/her?

_____________________________________

The labour court, per Van Niekerk J, dealt with the aforesaid issue in Nhlapo Mofokeng v Emfuleni Municipality and Another (2023) 44 ILJ 815 (LC); (2022) 33 SALLR 276 (LC) as follows:

  • s64(4) of the LRA permits an employee or a trade union, who refers a dispute about a unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment to a council or the CCMA, in such referral and for the period mentioned in s64(1)(a) (a maximum of 30 days), to (a) require the employer not to implement the unilateral change, or (b) if already implemented, require the employer to restore such terms and conditions of employment
  • with reference to the aforesaid statutory provision, it is important to indicate that s64(1)(a) of the LRA determines that the right to strike and the recourse to lockout occurs if the issue in dispute has been referred to the council or the CCMA and if either a certificate of non-resolution has been issued or the period of 30 days has lapsed since the referral was received by the council or the CCMA (the maximum of 30 days)
  • in terms of s64(5) of the LRA, the employer is required to comply with the requirement to restore the existing terms and conditions of employment or not to implement the anticipated changes within 48 hours of service of the referral on it – with reference to Schoeman and Another v Samsung Electronics SA (Pty) Ltd (1997) 18 ILJ 1098 (LC) and Du Randt v Ultamat SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (2013) 34 ILJ 2228 (LC), it was held that s64 only pertains to employees in a strike context (or lockout context) and not to an individual employee

Thus, unlike the scenario under the 1995 LRA, where the unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment constituted an unfair labour practice, it is apparent that the only option available to an individual employee is to challenge the employer before the labour court in terms of s77(3), read with s77A(e), of the BCEA.

September 28, 2026

What are the principles governing common purpose misconduct?

September 21, 2026

What are the principles governing an employee’s duty to disclose to his/her employer information about misconduct?

September 14, 2026

In Article 31, we dealt with the distinction between desertion and abscondment.

In Article 32, we dealt with the misconduct of deeming desertion.

In this article, we will deal with termination of employment by operation of law in the private sector – similar to deeming to be discharged in the public sector.