Skip to main content

Article 5/2025

Practitioners find it difficult to appreciate the fact that a reinstatement order does not, in itself, reinstate an employee.

What are some of the considerations underpinning the said approach?

_____________________________________

With reference to Kubeka v Ni-Da Transport (2021) 32 SALLR 14 (LAC), the constitutional court, in NUM obo Fohlisa v Hendor (2017) 28 SALLR 2 (CC), adopted the following approach when dealing with the consequences of a reinstatement order :

  • a reinstatement order does not restore the employment contract
  • a reinstatement order directs the employee to tender services and directs the employer to accept such tender – it is thus the employer that reinstatements the employee and not the CCMA or the labour court
  • if the employee tenders services and the employer refuses to accept such tender, there is no restoration of the employment contract – in order to ensure compliance with the reinstatement order, the employee is required to institute contempt proceedings (an order ad factum praestandum)
  • on the other hand, if the employee fails to tender his/her services, the employment contract is not restored – in such circumstances, the employee is not able to claim relief in terms of the reinstatement order
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.