Skip to main content

Article 44/2022

Under what circumstances should contempt of court proceedings be utilised instead of having a writ issued?

_____________________________________

Section 163 of the LRA provides that judgments and orders of the labour court may be executed as if they were judgments or orders of the high court.  Before steps are taken by a judgment creditor to sue out a writ of execution in satisfaction of the judgment in his favour, it has to be ascertained whether the judgment was in a form allowing enforcement by means of a writ.  In the case of a judgment ad pecuniam solvendam (directing the judgment debtor to pay a sum of money), it is appropriate to seek its enforcement by means of a writ of execution.  On the other hand, in the case of a judgment ad factum praestandum, an order is enforceable by means of contempt proceedings (Hendor (CC) clearly established that an order of retrospective payment of remuneration is an order ad factum praestandum, enforceable by means of contempt of court proceedings).

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?