Legal updates and opinions
News / News
How binding is a CCMA settlement agreement?
Written settlement agreement at the CCMA
If an employee enters into a written settlement agreement at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (“CCMA”) on the advice of her representative, can she subsequently escape the agreement on the basis that she was duped into doing so by her representative? Can she do so if she entered the agreement under duress or as a result of the undue influence of her representative?
Ordinary laws of contract
In Ulster v the Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd (C 647/2012) [2013] ZALCCT 3 (15 February 2013), the Labour Court was faced with this question. It held that the ordinary laws of contract will apply. Therefore a settlement agreement can only be set aside if it is successfully shown that the employee was placed under the type of duress required in common law. In this case, the employee was a bank manager with 30 years’ experience, she was educated and well-informed.
It was clear she understood the nature of contracts. She understood the nature of the proceedings and agreed to sign the settlement agreement. In the circumstances, she entered into the agreement with open eyes, fully aware of its consequences, and should be bound by the terms thereof.
Common law position on the effect of concluding an agreement
Whilst this decision confirms the common law position on the effect of concluding an agreement, it does highlight that a settlement agreement might not stand up to scrutiny if the employee can show that he or she did not understand the legal significance of signing such an agreement, was not well informed, educated or experienced in such matters. A way to avoid this result would be to ensure that the terms of a settlement agreement are explained to the employee by the Commissioner before he or she signs the agreement.
It may even be advisable to have the agreement translated for the employee if his or her first language is different to that in which the agreement is drafted.
Read more on the CCMA pronounces on mandatory vaccination policy.
Latest News
When silence becomes complicity: Constructive dismissal, workplace bullying and the cost of doing nothing
by Bradley Workman-Davies, Director Constructive dismissal remains one of the more difficult claims to prove in South African labour law. [...]
Nxele v Chairperson of the Disciplinary Hearing: Mudau NO and others, [2026] 6 BLLR 628 (LC): Clarifying the operation of section 188A(11) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
by Bankey Sono, Director and Sandile Mogweng, Candidate Attorney The Labour Court in Nxele v Chairperson of the Disciplinary Hearing: [...]
No grout about it: The LAC cements section 197 principles
by Bradley Workman-Davies, Director Section 197 of the Labour Relations Act has long been one of the most misunderstood and [...]
Making sense of death: A brief overview of inquest proceedings
by Dakalo Singo, Director and Head of Pro Bono By its very nature, death is tragic. The death of a [...]
Is cryptocurrency ‘capital’? Taking the Mangundhla judgment under the loop
by Deon Griessel, Director 1. Introduction Two Gauteng Division judgements have reached diametrically opposite conclusions on the question as to [...]
Agonists and APIs: High Court Injects Clarity into Compounding Debate
by Neil Kirby, Director and Head of Healthcare & Life Sciences and Slade van Rooyen, Associate The practice of compounding [...]
