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
POPIA face-off on Facebook: High Court says social media post is unlawful, orders interdict
In the recent High Court decision of Munetsi v Madhuyu, the applicant sought a court order against the respondents to [...]
SAFM Market Update: Cross Trainer Enters Business Rescue
Dr. Eric Levenstein, Director and Head of our Insolvency & Business Rescue practice area, had a discussion with Jimmy [...]
When Three Legal Planets Align… WhatsApp Must Pay a $220 000 000.00 Fine
The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission ("Commission"), being the foremost agency in Nigeria, responsible for the promotion, protection, and [...]
Waive Goodbye to Uncertainty: Phoenix Salt Industries (Pty) Ltd v The Lubavitch Foundation of Southern Africa
and Laeeqah Kassiem, Candidate Attorney This article discusses the judgement of Phoenix Salt Industries (Pty) Ltd v The Lubavitch Foundation [...]
Mr. Pty Ltd, You Have a Right to Privacy!
When thinking about the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 ("POPIA") individuals often, mistakenly so, think about the [...]
Section 54 – Still a Bar to the Commencement of Mining Activity?
On 5 December 2018, Werksmans published an article on the Constitutional Court Judgment: CCT 265/17 Maledu v Itereleng Bakgatla Mineral [...]