Skip to main content

Article 9/2026

Government Gazette 52515 of 15 April 2025 (Gazette 2) replaced the 2014 Regulations.

  • What are some of the more important features contained in Gazette 2?

_____________________________________

Employment equity plan (EE plan) duration

  • In terms of the 2014 Regulations, there was flexibility in this regard and the plan could be for a 1 to 5-year period.
  • Now, the period is fixed from September 2025 to August 2030 – however, new employers, after April 2025, must comply with the remainder of the periods.
  • The 5-year compulsory cycle must be aligned with the sectoral targets.

Numerical goals

  • In terms of the 2014 Regulations, an employer was entitled to set its own goals in terms of the economically active population (EAP).
  • Now, there are compulsory sectoral targets and annual compliance is required.

Sectoral approach

  • In terms of the 2014 Regulations, there were no explicit sectoral targets.
  • Now, there are targets so applicable, per sector (EEA17).

Compliance assessments

  • In terms of the 2014 Regulations, an employer’s compliance was assessed with regard to the employer’s elected own goals.
  • Now, compliance is measured against the employer’s progress in relation to the chosen sectoral targets – however, an employer receives protection when there are reasonable grounds for not complying with these targets.

Enforcement

  • In terms of the 2014 Regulations, same occurred by means of the utilisation of EEA5 to EEA7.
  • Now, such enforcement takes place by means of the following processes encapsulated in the forms as set out hereunder:
    • EEA5 (a request for an undertaking)
    • EEA6 (a compliance order)
    • EEA7 (the DG review assessment form)

Compliance certificate

  • This issue was not regulated in terms of the 2014 Regulations.
  • Now, compliance certificates are regulated by means of various processes encapsulated in the following forms:
    • EEA15 (request for compliance certificate)
    • EEA16A (compliance certificate: designated employers)
    • EEA16B (compliance certificate: non-designated employers)
    • EEA16C (intention to withdrawn compliance certificate)
    • EEA16D (withdrawal of a compliance certificate)

Economically active population (EAP)

  • Under the 2014 Regulations, the employer had an option to use either the national or regional EAP data.
  • Now, it is required that the employer must indicate which specific EAP data is used – subsequent articles will deal with more specific EAP requirements.

Forms

  • In terms of the 2014 Regulations, EEA1 to EEA14 were utilised.
  • Now, the original forms have been largely maintained but new ones added (EEA1 to EEA17 are being utilised).
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)?