Legal updates and opinions
Authors
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
The union doth protest too much: NUMSA v BMW and the limits of court intervention in disciplinary proceedings
by Bradley Workman-Davies, Director The Labour Court’s judgment in NUMSA on behalf of Members v BMW (SA) (Pty) Ltd is [...]
Evaluating the public interest effects of a merger: The Competition Appeal Court charts the course
by Paul Coetser, Director and Head of Competition and Kwanele Diniso, Associate When evaluating a merger, the Competition Act 89 [...]
What makes the “Best” mobile network? A South African perspective
by Ahmore Burger-Smidt, Director and Head of Regulatory Choosing the “best” mobile network depends on multiple factors. In practice, it [...]
South African Competition Commission’s Draft Guidelines on Minority Shareholder Protections: what businesses need to know
by Ahmore Burger-Smidt, Director and Head of Regulatory The Competition Commission has published Draft Guidelines on Minority Shareholder Protections for [...]
COMESA publishes important new Competition Regulations
by Paul Coetser, Director and Head of Competition and Raisah Mahomed, Associate The Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa [...]
Supreme Court of Appeal clarifies boundaries between casino and bookmaker licences in the Gauteng province
by Wendy Rosenberg - Director, Tebogo Sibidla - Director and Nothando Madondo - Associate In recent years, the number of [...]
