The concept of job security and fairness for employees in retrenchments

By Alex Davies


  • The general principles in relation to dismissals based on an employer’s operational requirements are set out in section 189 and 189A of the Labour Relations Act[1] (“the LRA”).
  • At first blush the general principles appear to be fairly straightforward and easy to apply when entering into a retrenchment process and ultimately terminating the employment of those unlucky employees who are eventually impacted by no-fault terminations. However, on a practical level, the application of the general principles is no less of a minefield for disputes than in the case of any other type of termination.


  • A no-fault termination, like any other termination, is assessed on the basis of the principle of fairness (procedural[2] and substantive) under the provisions of the LRA.
  • Emphasis is placed on a consultation process where the parties involved must try to reach agreement on various prescribed aspects including but not limited to the criteria to be utilised when selecting employees for dismissal. Where no agreement is reached on the selection criteria the employer will then apply a selection criteria.
  • All selection criteria must be fair and objective both in their nature and in their factual application.
  • It is important to consider that selection criteria which appear at face value to be neutral may in fact be discriminatory at a deeper level through treating groups of employees differently and preventing a level playing field.
  • In disputes, the Employer carries the onus of proof in respect of fairness.


  • The Labour Court in the van Staden judgement set out an in depth analysis into the aspect of the fairness of the retrenchment process undertaken by Telkom during 2014. For the purposes of this article the detail of the evidence is not repeated however the following aspects are important.
  • Telkom undertook a restructuring exercise in 2014 in an attempt to reduce costs at a managerial level, the aim was to place Telkom in a better financial position through a new leaner structure and reduced costs. The operational rational was in principle not in dispute however the application of selection criteria was disputed.
  • The process undertaken entailed a number of aspects including requiring employees to apply for possible positions for which they qualified. Employees who applied for positions went through three selection stages for placement into the new structure.
  • The first stage was a very strict, largely mechanical process of placement where employees met the criteria for a specific position. In the second stage there was somewhat more flexibility in the placement of employees within positions which remained vacant after the stage one placements were made.
  • Employees who were not successful in securing placements during the selection for placement were ultimately issued with dismissal notices unless they were able to secure positions in a third stage through a process of competitive recruitment.
  • On analysis of the application of selection criteria applied for the dismissal of employees the Court found that it was clear that the selection criteria applied to the dismissals was in reality whether or not an employee had been placed within the new structure or not. The Court found that this is not an acceptable or fair criteria that may be used to select employees for dismissal.
  • Ultimately close to 100 employees were dismissed, including the Applicants, in circumstances where about 170 alternative vacant positions existed within the new structure which were not offered to the employees prior to their termination.
  • The Court quoted, with approval, the following extract from the judgement of the Labour Appeal Court in the matter of Oosthuizen v Telkom SA Ltd[4] in its rejection of the notion that existing employees should apply for internal jobs in order to survive dismissal:

“A dismissal that could have been avoided but was not avoided is a dismissal that is without a fair reason."[5]

  • The Court further rejected the argument that the Applicants lacked the skills to fill the vacant positions, stating that it could not simply accept this explanation, which was not born out from the evidence led. The Court questioned why the option of skilling individuals was not considered by Telkom if indeed they lacked skills.
  • Ultimately, the Labour Court found the dismissals were unfair and reinstated the Applicants on a retrospective basis without loss of benefits into the positions that they held prior to their termination.
  • The Applicants were effectively reinstated into their positions where they were not yet placed into positions in the new structure but also not yet terminated pursuant to a finalisation of the process.


  • When undertaking restructuring or retrenchment exercises employers must ensure that the selection criteria applied are objectively fair criteria and that they are applied fairly across a level playing field of impacted staff members who are all treated equally.
  • Dismissal should be imposed by an employer as a last resort where alternatives have been properly investigated in order to avoid the dismissals.
  • The process of requiring staff members to successfully apply and compete for positions in order to ensure continued job security is unfair when used as a selection criteria for dismissals.


[1] Act 66 of 1995, as amended

[2] In large scale retrenchment proceedings conducted in terms of section 189A of the LRA it is imperative that any procedural disputes are raised timeously in accordance with section 189A(13) of the LRA failing which the right to do so is forfeited as confirmed by the Constitutional Court in Steenkamp and Others v Edcon Limited, unreported judgement under case number CCT29/18 handed down on 30 April 2019.

[3] Unreported Judgement of the Labour Court under case number JS95/15 as handed down on 11 May 2019

[4] [2007] JOL 20249 (LAC)

[5] See para 8

You can download this newsletter as a PDF document, or send the link to a friend.
Download as PDF
Title Description Published By
Sep 2019
Litigation Privilege: when and how can it be waived? Ivor Heyman View
Aug 2019
Refusal to accept a demand by an employer a legitimate operational requirements? Alex Davies View
June 2019
Can a union suspend a strike and take it up again? Johanette Rheeder View
May 2019
Social Media – Clash between Freedom of Expression & Privacy Ivor Heyman View
April 2019
Canabis in the workplace Wanya Cloete View
March 2019
GDPR/POPIA – Where Technology and Ethics have reached crossroads Megan Grindell View
February 2019
Strikes – certificates of outcome and matters of mutual interest – how far does it stretch? Johanette Rheeder View
Jan 2019
Regulations relating to the Protection of Personal Information Johanette Rheeder View
Dec 2018
Collection of debt from Employees Johanette Rheeder View
Nov 2018
Strikes – certificates of outcome and matters of mutual interest – how far does it stretch? Johanette Rheeder View
October 2018
The right to strike – A matter of mutual interest Johanette Rheeder View
July 2018
Extension of Collective Agreements Alex Davies View
June 2018
GDPR / POPIA – Where Technology & Ethics Have Reached a Crossroad Megan Grindell View
May 2018
Exemption Clauses: an assessment of the burden of proof Ivor Heyman View
April 2018
Companies that cannot afford the National Minimum Wage Department Of Labour View
March 2018
Portfolio Committee on Labour Extended Invitation for Commentary By SASLAW View
February 2018
Business Rescue Proceedings – A Brief Overview Alex Davies View
January 2018
Collection of debt from employees Alex Davies View
November 2017
Publication Of New Bills Which Impact Employment Alex Davies View
September 2017
POPI Regulations & the duties of the Information Officer Johanette Rheeder View
August 2017
Is a Break in the Trust Relationship, a prerequisite to Dismissal? Alex Davies View
July 2017
Temporary Employment Services - NUMSA vs Asign Services Alex Davies View
June 2017
Probation and probation related dismissals in the CCMA Johanette Rheeder View
May 2017
Job descriptions and extra duties required of an emplyee Johanette Rheeder View
March 2017
The extention of collective agreements in the workplace Alex Davies View
January 2017
The application of the prescription act to disputes under the labour relations act Alex Davies View
November 2016
Who can represent parties at CCMA proceedings? Yozan Botha View
September 2016
“Solidarity for Ever” Collective bargaining – rights and duties Johanette Rheeder View
July 2016
POPI Implementation on the horizon Johanette Rheeder View
May 2016
Applying the rule test in disciplinary hearing Johanette Rheeder View
April 2016
Does the managerial prerogative still apply during the recruitment process? Johanette Rheeder View
March 2016
The Stigmatising Effect of Medical Testing on Mental Illness Kellie Hennessy View
February 2016
Office Romance - A Lesson in managing personal relationships at work Kellie Hennessy View
January 2016
Rights for Males to Maternity Leave Benefits Kellie Hennessy View
December 2015
Interdicting Disciplinary Hearings Johanette Rheeder View
November 2015
The Right to Natural Justice in Disciplinary Hearings Xander Wehncke View
October 2015
The Protection of Personal Information Act No 4 of 2013 (“POPI”): Rethink the ‘architechture’ of your business Kellie Hennessy View
September 2015
Load Shedding in the Workplace: Negotiate Back the Power Kellie Hennessy View
July 2015
Retrenchment - Do We Recognise The Effect? Johanette Rheeder View
June 2015
The new CCMA rules - The ultimate relief? Johanette Rheeder View
May 2015
Medical Incapacity, Disability and Discrimination Kellie Hennessy View
April 2015
Breach of the trust relationship in employment: What to prove and how to prove it Xander Wehncke View
March 2015
The exposure of senior employees in terms of Labour Relations Amendment Act 2012 Johanette Rheeder View
February 2015
The Correct Approach to a Reviewable ‘Error in Law' Kellie Hennessy View
January 2015
E-Cigarettes and the Workplace Kellie Hennessy View