Designated Employers, People with Disabilities and Sectoral Targets: An Analysis of the Amendments Promulgated in terms of the Employment Equity Amendment Act 4 of 2022

by | Jan 9, 2026 | ILJ, ILJ V47 I1

Designated Employers, People with Disabilities and Sectoral Targets: An Analysis of the Amendments Promulgated in terms of the Employment Equity Amendment Act 4 of 2022

Author Jeannine van de Rheede

ISSN: 2413-9874
Affiliations: Senior Lecturer, University of the Western Cape, PhD (Western Cape)
Source: Industrial Law Journal, Volume 47 Issue 1, 2026, p. 1 – 23
https://doi.org/10.47348/ILJ/v47/i1a1

Abstract

Employment equity is implemented in South Africa (SA) to redress the workplace injustices caused by apartheid. SA embraces substantive equality that acknowledges that remedial measures should be implemented to eradicate the negative effects of past and present unfair discrimination. The Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (EEA) was promulgated inter alia to promote the constitutional right to equality, by ensuring that employment equity is implemented and achieves a diverse workforce broadly representative of SA’s people. In terms of the Employment Equity Amendment Act 4 of 2022 the definition of a ‘designated employer’ and ‘people with disabilities’ has been amended. It provides, inter alia, that the Minister of the Department of Employment and Labour is empowered to set numerical targets to ensure the equitable representation of people from designated groups at the different occupational levels. This article determines whether inter alia this amendment is in line with the objectives that the EEA aims to achieve. While the government continues to emphasise its commitment to rectifying the historical imbalances in workplaces and promoting employment equity, the article illustrates that some of these amendments, when assessed through the lens of substantive equality, fall short of the Act’s objectives.

Some Thoughts on Collective Autonomy: SA Local Government Bargaining Council & others v Municipal Workers Retirement Fund & others (2025) 46 ILJ 2361 (SCA)

by | Jan 9, 2026 | ILJ, ILJ V47 I1

Some Thoughts on Collective Autonomy: SA Local Government Bargaining Council & others v Municipal Workers Retirement Fund & others (2025) 46 ILJ 2361 (SCA)

Authors PAK le Roux & André van Niekerk JA

ISSN: 2413-9874
Affiliations: Executive Consultant, ENS Africa; Attorney of the High Court of South Africa; Judge of the Labour Appeal Court
Source: Industrial Law Journal, Volume 47 Issue 1, 2026, p. 24 – 37
https://doi.org/10.47348/ILJ/v47/i1a2

Abstract

The principle of collective autonomy is an element inherent in the rights to freedom of association and to bargain collectively. The principle requires that public authorities, including the courts, respect the autonomy of the collective bargaining process and its outcomes. International labour standards recognise that the scope for intervention, especially in the substance of a collective agreement voluntarily concluded by the bargaining partners, is extremely limited. Although the nature and form of a collective agreement are prescribed by the statutory definition of a ‘collective agreement’ in s 213 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 and thus constitute an infringement on collective autonomy, these limitations do not offend international standards. The prospect of a right of review of a collective agreement in the hands of third parties raises the spectre of an unjustifiable encroachment on collective autonomy, whether by way of a review of what is contended to be administrative action, but especially a review on the principle of legality. The principle of collective autonomy requires courts to approach attempts by third parties to review and set aside collective agreements with caution and restraint.

Vodacom (Pty) Ltd v Makate & another [2025] ZACC 13: Implications for the Review of Awards of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

by | Jan 9, 2026 | ILJ, ILJ V47 I1

Vodacom (Pty) Ltd v Makate & another [2025] ZACC 13: Implications for the Review of Awards of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Author Anton Myburgh SC

ISSN: 2413-9874
Affiliations: Senior Counsel, Johannesburg Bar (Sandton); Adjunct Professor of Law, Nelson Mandela University
Source: Industrial Law Journal, Volume 47 Issue 1, 2026, p. 38 – 47
https://doi.org/10.47348/ILJ/v47/i1a3

Abstract

In this case, the Constitutional Court found that an integral component of the s 34 fair hearing right is ‘the duty of proper consideration’ and that the malperformance of the duty will result in a court’s judgment being overturned on appeal without any consideration of the merits. Given that arbitration before the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) is regulated by s 34 of the Constitution, the duty of proper consideration also applies to commissioners. This note considers the implications for the review of CCMA awards. It concludes that where commissioners breach their duty of proper consideration by, for example, failing to consider materially relevant facts, this constitutes a gross irregularity as per Ngcobo J’s gross irregularity dictum in Sidumo & another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd & others (2007) 28 ILJ 2405 (CC), which was founded on s 34. While it appears likely that the Labour Court will be confronted (perhaps inundated) with ‘reviews for want of proper consideration’, it remains to be seen how they will be dealt with.

The Shoe Doesn’t Fit: BATA and the Rights in Sections 198A, 198B and 198C of the Labour Relations Act

by | Jan 9, 2026 | ILJ, ILJ V47 I1

The Shoe Doesn’t Fit: BATA and the Rights in Sections 198A, 198B and 198C of the Labour Relations Act

Author Craig Bosch

ISSN: 2413-9874
Affiliations: Advocate at the Cape Bar; Research Associate, Nelson Mandela University
Source: Industrial Law Journal, Volume 47 Issue 1, 2026, p. 47 – 62
https://doi.org/10.47348/ILJ/v47/i1a4

Abstract

In 2014 the legislature introduced a suite of provisions providing additional protections for three categories of vulnerable employees: temporary employment service employees, employees on fixed term contracts and part-time employees. This note analyses Bata SA (Pty) Ltd v SA Clothing & Textile Workers Union obo Members & others where the Labour Appeal Court had to grapple with interpreting s 198D of the Labour Relations Act. It is argued that the court unnecessarily adopted a problematic interpretation which has the effect of undermining the purpose and efficacy of the provisions referred to above and proposals are made regarding how the current difficulty might be addressed.

Dismissals for Operational Requirements: The Impact of Changing Employment Terms Aimed at Profitability and Market Competitiveness in Khan v Durban University of Technology (2025) 46 ILJ 161 (LC)

by | Jan 9, 2026 | ILJ, ILJ V47 I1

Dismissals for Operational Requirements: The Impact of Changing Employment Terms Aimed at Profitability and Market Competitiveness in Khan v Durban University of Technology (2025) 46 ILJ 161 (LC)

Authors Asheelia Behari & Judell-Lesha Joseph

ISSN: 2413-9874
Affiliations: Lecturer, Department of Public Management, Law & Economics, Durban University of Technology; LLB LLM PhD (UKZN); Lecturer, Department of Public Management, Law & Economics, Durban University of Technology; LLB LLM PhD (UKZN)
Source: Industrial Law Journal, Volume 47 Issue 1, 2026, p. 62 – 84
https://doi.org/10.47348/ILJ/v47/i1a5

Abstract

Economic transformation requires employers to adapt continually, which may result in dismissals for operational requirements. Such dismissals may extend beyond financial survival to include goals of profitability, competitiveness, and institutional sustainability. In Khan v Durban University of Technology, the applicant was retrenched after failing to meet a new minimum qualification standard, which the Durban University of Technology argued was essential to remain competitive, attractive, and financially sustainable. The Labour Court upheld the dismissal, and confirmed that operational requirements can include not only survival but also competitiveness and profitability. The judgment reinforces that retrenchments can be fair when changes to employment terms are justified by genuine operational needs.

Remote and Hybrid Work(ers): Considerations for Regulating Remote Working Arrangements and a Code of Good Practice for Remote Work

by | Jan 9, 2026 | ILJ, ILJ V47 I1

Remote and Hybrid Work(Ers): Considerations for Regulating Remote Working Arrangements and a Code of Good Practice for Remote Work

Authors Debbie Collier & Abigail Osiki

ISSN: 2413-9874
Affiliations: Professor/Director, Centre for Transformative Regulation of Work (CENTROW), University of the Western Cape; Research Associate, CENTROW, University of the Western Cape
Source: Industrial Law Journal, Volume 47 Issue 1, 2026, p. 85 – 110
https://doi.org/10.47348/ILJ/v47/i1a6

Abstract

Globally, the COVID-19 pandemic intensified the focus on remote work and raised the need to evaluate the adequacy of labour legislation and workplace policies in the context of hybrid and remote-work arrangements. Remote work is characterised by the use of digital technology to perform tasks outside of the employer’s premises, often at the employee’s home. While it offers flexibility, inclusivity, and environmental benefits, it presents challenges too, for example in regard to enforcing employment standards, maintaining work-life balance, privacy, health and safety, and avoiding the risk of worker invisibility. Similarly, remote work poses difficulties for performance management and access to the workplace for inspection purposes.
Key issues explored in this report include the regulation of working hours, occupational health and safety concerns, and compensation for occupational injuries. The report proposes the development of regulatory mechanisms — regulations and a Code of Good Practice — for remote work to provide certainty to remote workers and safeguard their well-being while balancing this with the interests of employers. The report thus provides guidance on remote-work policies in the workplace. Additionally, it considers legislative developments on flexible working arrangements that respond to the evolving nature of work in the digital era, promote work-life balance, and support gender equality.