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
A Shift in Creditor Protections – The application of Section 34 of the Insolvency Act during Business Rescue Proceedings
Section 34 of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 (the "Insolvency Act") has historically safeguarded creditors' interests in South Africa [...]
Tainted treats, spoiled foods and potential dangers…are there any legal safeguards for consumers?
In recent weeks gone by, there have been numerous food poisoning cases reported[1] resulting in serious health issues and, in [...]
Going nowhere fast, proposed amendments to the direct marketing regulations under the CPA published, and your comments are sought!
On October 28, 2024, the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (dtic) published draft amendments to the regulations under the [...]
The Collection of Premiums on Behalf of Insurers – A Look at the Impact of The Exemption of Juristic Representatives from Section 13(1)(C) of FAIS
and Khanyisa Tshoba, Candidate Attorney Introduction: In practice the need may arise for an insurer to appoint a third party [...]
The effects of the CPA Amendment Act, 2017
and Elia Chitata - Candidate Attorney With the introduction of the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994, which [...]
Section 22 – A Springboard into Business Rescue
and Caitlin Steytler – Candidate Attorney In August 2024, Statistics South Africa revealed that 1020 entities filed for liquidation in [...]