Legal updates and opinions
News / News
Employer may fairly dismiss employees for refusing to accept operational changes in the context of restructuring
Refusing to accept operational changes in the context of restructuring
Explanatory Note
Generally, the dismissal of employees to coerce them into accepting a particular employment outcome amounts to an automatically unfair dismissal within the meaning of Section 187 of LRA.
The Constitutional Court, in the matter of NUMSA and Others v Aveng Trident Steel and Another, introduced a new dimension to the dismissal of employees for refusing to accept an employer’s proposed operational changes in the context of restructuring. The Court’s central focus, in this case, was to determine the true reason for dismissal. However, this explanatory note does not deal with this aspect.
Aveng was in financial distress, and it took a decision to implement an organizational plan (which involved the restructuring of its operations), in an attempt to save its business. The restructuring entailed, amongst others, the redesigning of job descriptions. As a result, the employees were going to earn less. The arrangement was initially interim and agreed to by NUMSA. Surprisingly, when the employer sought to implement the restructured job descriptions NUMSA refused. Consequently, the employees were dismissed.
The Court, having considered that Aveng “faced harsh economic conditions and needed to restructure in order to survive and avoid the wholesale loss of jobs of its entire workforce“, determined that Aveng was justified in dismissing the employees for operational reasons. In other words, the employees were dismissed for refusing to accept the operational changes proposed by the employer (or alternatives to dismissal), and their dismissal was declared by the Court to be fair.
The Court in arriving at the decision has reminded us not to lose sight of one of the primary purposes of the LRA – to advance economic development.
Additional resources on labour law and Employment
Latest News
Section 11 consent: Can the regulator breathe life into a void transaction?
by Kathleen Louw, Director 1. Section 11 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 ("the MPRDA") [...]
Resign First, Complain Later? The LAC Draws the Line on Constructive Dismissal
by Bradley Workman-Davies, Director Constructive dismissal is not an escape route for employees who are dissatisfied with their working environment, [...]
Kusile Pollution: SCA Orders Eskom and Regulators to Act
by Jones Antunes, Director (Reviewer), and Tashlin Ramanundh, Candidate Attorney Environmental authorisations impose strict obligations which continue throughout the life [...]
AI and gambling, the regulatory gap is growing
by Wendy Rosenberg, Director and Head of Digital Media & Electronic Communications, and Tebogo Sibidla, Director Artificial intelligence (AI) is [...]
Blocking growth? Why the NCC’s Draft Opt-Out Registry Guidelines need revisiting | You were only given 15 days to comment – what are you doing?
by Ahmore Burger-Smidt, Director and Head of Regulatory, and Boitumelo Khwene, Candidate Attorney No one defends the spam caller. According [...]
Voting rights not afforded to post-commencement creditors
by Dr. Eric Levenstein, Director and Head of Insolvency & Business Rescue, Brandon Starr, Senior Associate, and Clio Patricios, Candidate [...]
