Home

 

Possible change in section 189 requirements: Can employers embark on redeployment before retrenchment processes commence?

By Aadil Patel, Director, National Practice Head and Samantha Bonato, Associate, Employment, Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr

 

The recent case of ArcelorMittal South Africa Limited v NUMSA (case number: J 421/17) unpacked what is meant by avoiding job losses.

 

Judge Van Niekerk held that s189 of the Labour Relations Act, No 66 of 1995 (LRA):

 

“specifically contemplates that prior to a formal invitation to consult being issued, measures to avoid job losses are to be considered and where necessary, implemented. Indeed, a failure to do so undermines the notion of retrenchment as a measure of last resort and amounts to breach of this section.” 

 

What does this mean for employers? The answer lies in the facts of this case. 

 

The employer sought to restructure its operations in order to avoid retrenchments. It had not issued any s189(3) notices. The National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa sought to halt the redeployments to consult further with ArcelorMittal.

 

Their application was dismissed. The Court held that an employer must embark on measures to avoid job losses even before a s189(3) notice is issued. Such measures include the redeployment of employees from one job to another.

 

In light of this recent decision, could an employer offer voluntary severance packages to employees in order to avoid job losses prior to issuing s189(3) notices. Current case authority seems to suggest otherwise. 

 

For more information please contact Aadil Patel at or Samantha Bonato at

Article published with the kind courtesy of Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr www.cliffedekkerhofmeyr.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Law Summaries and Articles

 

Can employees be dismissed for refusing to accept new terms and conditions of employment?

Can an employer dismiss employees because they refuse to agree to a change to their terms and conditions of employment? An initial answer may be, “yes”.

Read More >>>

 

Escape route: “Resignation with immediate effect”

The latest case in the ‘disciplining employees who have resigned with immediate effect’ saga has brought about more uncertainty as to whether an employee who resigns with immediate effect shortly before a disciplinary hearing can avoid disciplinary action and subsequent dismissal.

Read More >>>

 

Freedom of expression or incitement to commit an offence? A constitutional challenge

On 4 July 2019, the North Gauteng High Court handed down judgment in the case of The EFF and other v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and other (87638/2017 and 45666/2017) in which the EFF and Julius Malema (the applicants) sought to have s18(2)(b) of the Riotous Assemblies Act, No 17 of 1956 (Riotous Act) declared unconstitutional.

Read More >>>

 

Consolidated, comprehensive or general final written warnings

Regarding dismissal, according to the Code of Good Practice, “the courts have endorsed the concept of corrective or progressive discipline. This approach regards the purpose of discipline as a means for employees to know and understand what standards are required of them.

Read More >>>

 

 

 

 

 

 

Courses and Workshops

 

                   

 

The OHS Act and the Responsibilities of Management

22 November 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

29 November 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Stay Easy: Cape Town

Employment Equity Committee Training

22 November 2019

Protea Hotel Fire & Ice: Menlyn

Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment Course

27 November 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Stay Easy: Cape Town

Workshop Incident/Accident Investigation Course

28 November 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Stay Easy: Cape Town

AARTO and the Impact on Your Business

28 November 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

    

 Our Clients 

 

Android App On Google Play

Android App On Google Play