When “Harassment” Is Not Harassment: The Labour Court’s Decision In La Foy
The judgment offers a clear and helpful delineation between true harassment and ordinary workplace friction. The EEA is not a catch-all for general dissatisfaction or perceived unfairness. For employers, the message is straightforward: act transparently, document your decisions, apply policies consistently and ensure your processes are fair. When you do, ordinary managerial actions—even if unpopular—will not, without more, constitute harassment or unfair discrimination.
Case law update: Transnet Soc Ltd v NTM obo Molope & Another
For employers struggling with boundary-testing behaviour, particularly in unionised or partially unionised environments, this judgment provides a clear jurisprudential foundation for firm, fair and policy-aligned disciplinary action.
Recent Developments: The Constitutional Court, Parental Leave and Van Wyk
This judgment marks a decisive shift towards gender-neutral caregiving and equal parenting in the workplace. While full legislative clarity is pending, the interim order is already binding, and employers who fail to comply face material legal and reputational risk.
Double Trouble: Double Jeopardy and SAMWU Obo Malatsi v SALGBC & Others
Where an arbitrator has already sanctioned specific conduct, an employer cannot “try again” internally. Its only lawful recourse is to take the award on review in an attempt to have it set aside. Employers must therefore treat arbitration awards as not merely procedural setbacks, but binding decisions with disciplinary force. Anything less risks costly reinstatements years later.
Case Law Update: Retrenchment and the Duverge Judgment
In April 2025, the Labour Court delivered a significant judgment in Duverge v Spanish Farm Guest House Lodge CC t/a Sky Villa Boutique Hotel & Sky Villa (Pty) Ltd (C04/24; more...
The new code of good practice: Dismissal and the small business
In a recent article, we broadly addressed the relevant effects of the new Code of Good Practice Dismissal (“the new code”) and the ways in which it amends, and in many instances, improves upon, the legal approach to dismissals adopted by the previous version of the new code and the Code of Good Practice on Operational Requirements (collectively “the previous codes”). In this article, we will be focusing on the specific effects of the new code on small business, and the methods employed to lessen the administrative and legal obstacles historically faced by small enterprises when faced with dismissal-related issues in the workplace.
One code to rule them all: The new code of good practice: Dismissal
4 September 2025 saw the implementation of the new Code of Good Practice: Dismissal (“the new Code”) replacing the long-standing Schedule 8: Code of Good Practice on Dismissal and the Code of Good Practice on Operational Requirements.
Broken Promises and Premium Consequences: Promissory Warranties in South African Insurance Law
There is no excuse that the insured party can use for their non-compliance with the promissory warranty in the traditional circumstances. They are not able to rely on the fact that the term in the warranty was immaterial to the risk that the insurer acceded to, nor can they rely on the argument that the breach they committed was one which was innocent, in good faith or unavoidable. As stated previously, they cannot even rely on the fact that the breach made no contribution to the loss which was suffered. The lack of a causative requirement or a materiality requirement places the insured party at a significant disadvantage in comparison to the insurer
Joint Ventures and Competition Law – do JVs require merger notification?
Joint ventures (JVs) are not defined in the Competition 89 of 1998 however, general principles of competition regulation are applied in determining whether the formation or expansion of a JV constitutes a notifiable transaction. It should be noted that even if the JV does not, in the parties’ assessment or the assessment of the Commission, the parties conduct may still be subject to the Competition Act and must ensure that they do not fall foul of its provisions, for example, by engaging in prohibited practices (sections 4, 5, 8 and 9).
Consistency is key: Restraints of Trade and the Pitfall of Selective Enforcement – A review of Altron Nexus (Pty) Ltd v Maurice Fowler and MST Critical Communications (Pty) Ltd
Accordingly, and in the event that an employer does apply a policy of selective enforcement of restraints of trade in its operations, it must, at the very least, be able to provide cogent, persuasive and reasonable justification for such a policy failing which its prospects of success in restraints-based litigation will be significantly diminished.
What is EPR? Sorting Through the Waste Regulations
Although it is clear that at this early stage, many market participants do not take EPR, the EPR Regulations, nor their enforcement seriously, and although ignoring the implications thereof may seem a tenable and attractive option, the Department has indicated that such an attitude will not go unpunished and will result in severe consequences further down the line.
New section 34A of PRECCA has significantly increased the risk to companies of being entangled in corrupt activities
The new section 34A in the Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004 ("PRECCA") has significantly increased the risk to companies of being entangled in corrupt activities.