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
What is the relevance of s 52 of the MPRDA on retrenchments in terms of section 189 and 189A in the mining industry?
In National Union of Mineworkers v Anglo American Platinum Ltd & others (Amplats), on 15 January 2013, Amplats had [...]
Renewable energy tax incentives
and Luke Magerman, Candidate Attorney The draft legislation to give effect to the two renewable energy tax incentives announced in [...]
Breaking the Chains: the Case of Ndwandwe v Trustees of Transnet Retirement Fund and others – A not-so-friendly reminder that a pension fund is not bound by a nomination form
and Karabo Kekana, Candidate Attorney The recent decision of Ndwandwe v Trustees of Transnet Retirement Fund and others[1] (the Ndwandwe [...]
E-waste versus Sustainability: A battle between people, big tech and responsible recycling
A study conducted by the United Nations University in 2019 estimated that approximately 53.6 million metric tonnes of electrical and [...]
The danger of cutting and pasting provisions in your settlement agreements!
On 21 February 2021, the Labour Appeal Court in Wheelwright v CP de Leeuw Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd (2023) 44 [...]
Mining terminology: the difference between “accepted”, “granted” “executed” and “registered”
Four of the most common words that one hears in conjunction with mining rights, prospecting rights are "accepted", "granted", [...]
