Skip to main content

Article 6/2026

LabourEdge

In line with the anticipated changes to the LRA and the BCEA, it is vitally important that practitioners appreciate what, firstly, their preparation and, secondly, their representation at the CCMA or bargaining council will entail if these changes go through.

What are the aspects that practitioners need to be aware of if these anticipated changes need to become law?

_____________________________________

Practitioners need to upskill their preparation and representation before the CCMA or bargaining council in respect of the following:

  • dealing with a request for the postponement of arbitration that will attract a ruling made by a commissioner that the party is to pay the CCMA fee
  • the effect of an arbitration award to be treated as an order of a magistrate’s court, or the labour court
  • the consequences of the anticipated provision that a fair procedure relating to dismissal, as set out in the LRA and amplified in the Code, is subject to an applicable collective agreement
  • the consequences of the requirement of substantive and procedural fairness not applying to new employees
  • the new protocols relating to an enquiry by an arbitrator
  • the commencement of arbitration immediately after certifying the dispute remains unresolved
  • the jurisdiction of the CCMA and bargaining council dealing with automatically unfair dismissals in terms of s187(d), s187(e) and s187(f) – a distinction between employees earning below and above the threshold in terms of s6(3) of the BCEA is also of relevance
  • the fact that reinstatement or re-employment is not applicable to an employee who earns more than the threshold determined ito s208B of the LRA (currently, R1.8m), unless the dismissal is automatically unfair
  • the new maximum anticipated compensation for unfair dismissals
  • the new maximum anticipated compensation for unfair labour practices
  • the limitation on an employee to institute a claim, arising from the same facts, based on an unfair dismissal, as well as an unlawful dismissal – and the obvious consequence that this is not applicable to unfair labour practices
  • the extended jurisdiction of the CCMA to deal with disputes concerning whether there has been compliance with the collective agreement – seeing that currently such jurisdiction is limited to the interpretation or application of a collective agreement and does not include its enforcement
  • the jurisdiction of the CCMA to undertake dispute resolution in terms of the newly statutorily-created category of employees, namely, on-call employees
  • the extended jurisdiction of the CCMA and bargaining councils to deal with any disputes regarding the entitlement of severance pay and not merely the application of s41 of the BCEA. This is particularly relevant in view of the approach that an employer is entitled, in circumstances where it assisted the employee to be retrenched in finding alternative employment, not to pay severance pay – with specific reference to Khanya Cleaning Group (Pty) Ltd v SA Transport and Allied Workers Union (2025) 36 SALLR 448 (LC)
  • the jurisdiction of the CCMA when, on good cause shown, an employer refers a dispute to the CCMA, outside the period within which it has to comply with a compliance order, to condone such late referral
  • the jurisdiction of the CCMA to deal with the employer’s failure to pay a contribution to a benefit fund on behalf of an employee
  • the jurisdiction of the CCMA when an employer fails to pay contributions to funds falling under the Pension Funds Act
  • the jurisdiction of the CCMA to deal with the extended definition of an employee in terms of s3(4)(a) of the BCEA Amendment Bill
  • the steps to be undertaken by a commissioner to determine whether the termination of a fixed-term contract amounts to a dismissal
  • the jurisdiction of the CCMA in terms of s198D of the LRA, dealing with the interpretation or application of s198A, s198B and s198C – after a declaratory order has been obtained from the CCMA or bargaining council in the above regard, the employee is not entitled to relief as part and parcel of the s189D process, but must claim relief separately
  • the rules regulating reinstatement/re-employment as the appropriate remedy, the burden of proof so applicable and the elements of the ‘test’ in this regard to be complied with

From the above, it is apparent that, if the anticipated changes to the LRA and the BCEA are indeed promulgated, there are a number of new and additional issues that practitioners will need to get to grapple with.

August 17, 2026

We think that everyone understands that an employer is vicariously liable for the wrong committed (an act or omission) by its employee during the course/scope/sphere of employment/engagement in any activity reasonably incidental to it.

But, what is the extent of an employer’s vicarious liability where the employee commits a wrong on his or her own volition?

August 10, 2026

What is the content of traditional consensus to indicate that an agreement exists between an employer and an employee?

If, on the traditional theory of consensus, a party fails to prove an agreement upon which it relies, with reference to Sonap Petroleum SA (Pty) Ltd v Pappadogianis 1992 (3) SA 234 (A), on what basis can a finding be made that quasi-mutual assent exists, founded on the approach that a party is precluded from denying the existence of an agreement based on their own conduct and the circumstances?

What does the three-fold enquiry entail to determine the presence of quasi-mutual assent?

In determining whether an agreement has been reached in the absence of traditional consensus, but on the basis of quasi-mutual assent, what is the extent of the duty on the party wishing to rely on such an agreement to, on the basis of reasonableness, enquire as to the contradictions that exist in the position of the other party so contained in correspondence?

August 3, 2026

Where do delictual claims fit into dispute resolution options applicable to employment disputes?