‘You Exist’: Misgendering as Workplace Harassment in South African Labour Law

by | Sep 30, 2026 | ILJ, ILJ V47 I4

‘You Exist’: Misgendering as Workplace Harassment in South African Labour Law

Author Letlhogonolo Mokgoroane

ISSN: 2413-9874
Affiliations: Advocate, Johannesburg Bar; In-house Counsel, Centre for Applied Legal Studies, University of the Witwatersrand
Source: Industrial Law Journal, Volume 47 Issue 4, 2026, p. 2203 – 2227
https://doi.org/10.47348/ILJ/v47/i4a1

Abstract

This article argues that persistent or deliberate misgendering in the workplace should be recognised in South African labour law as a form of harassment and, where appropriate, misconduct. The argument is grounded primarily in the Constitution, the Employment Equity Act, and the Code of Good Practice on the Prevention and Elimination of Harassment in the Workplace (Harassment Code) as well as the Labour Relations Act and accompanying Code of Good Practice: Dismissal. The article distinguishes between good-faith error and intentional or reckless conduct that persists despite the perpetrator being aware of its effect on others, which should attract the same legal seriousness as other forms of discriminatory harassment. It concludes by proposing reforms to workplace policy, training, disciplinary practice, and dispute resolution.

Limitations on Labour Inspectors: Analysing the Capacity and Authority of Labour Inspectors in Monitoring Child Labour in Private Residential Premises

by | Sep 30, 2026 | ILJ, ILJ V47 I4

Limitations on Labour Inspectors: Analysing the Capacity and Authority of Labour Inspectors in Monitoring Child Labour in Private Residential Premises

Authors Judell-Lesha Joseph, Darren Subramanien, Ernest Tenza

ISSN: 2413-9874
Affiliations: Lecturer, School of Law, University of Pretoria; LLB (Venda), LLM (Venda)
Source: Industrial Law Journal, Volume 47 Issue 4, 2026, p. 2228 – 2247
https://doi.org/10.47348/ILJ/v47/i4a2

Abstract

This article examines the effectiveness of South Africa’s child labour legislative framework in monitoring and enforcing prohibitions within private residential premises. Although legislation has been enacted to protect children from child labour, the persistence of child labour highlights a discrepancy between legislation and its practical implementation. The article assesses the roles of labour inspectors and social workers in monitoring child labour. The finding reveals that labour inspectors encounter significant limitations by requiring consent or warrants before entering private homes. These limitations delay interventions and enable offenders to conceal unlawful activities. In contrast, social workers have broader entry powers but are limited by resource and capacity challenges. The article identifies legislative loopholes regarding domestic chores as an additional form of child labour, without providing adequate consideration for a practical monitoring framework. It recommends expanding inspectors’ authority, improving training, strengthening interdepartmental coordination, and enhancing accountability measures. The article provides practical enforcement mechanisms for the protection against child labour.

Towards a Dependent Contractor Category in South Africa: Emerging Regulatory Responses to the Classification of Location-Based Platform Workers

by | Sep 30, 2026 | ILJ, ILJ V47 I4

Towards a Dependent Contractor Category in South Africa: Emerging Regulatory Responses to the Classification of Location-Based Platform Workers

Author Zwivhuya Mashele

ISSN: 2413-9874
Affiliations: Lecturer, School of Law, University of Pretoria; LLB (Venda), LLM (Venda)
Source: Industrial Law Journal, Volume 47 Issue 4, 2026, p. 2248 – 2273
https://doi.org/10.47348/ILJ/v47/i4a3

Abstract

Location-based platforms such as Uber manage work through digital applications but classify workers as independent contractors, which excludes them from essential labour law protections. This classification has sparked scholarly debate worldwide. In South Africa, it has prompted calls for regulatory intervention. This article evaluates South Africa’s proposed legislative response to the classification of platform work, including amendments proposed by the Labour Relations Amendment Bill (LRAB) and the Employment Services Amendment Bill (ESAB) published in February 2026. The ESAB, inter alia, introduces a new category of ‘worker’. The LRAB proposes adding Schedule 11, which expands the definition of ‘employee’ and extends collective labour rights, such as freedom of association, collective bargaining and the right to strike, to dependent contractors. The article concludes that these developments signify a shift towards acknowledging an intermediary category of dependent contractors. However, more precise and coherent legislation is needed to ensure that platform workers receive meaningful labour protections.

Misconduct in a previous period of employment: Kleinsmith v Commission for ConCiliation mediation and arbitration and others

by | Sep 30, 2026 | ILJ, ILJ V47 I4

Misconduct in a previous period of employment: Kleinsmith v Commission for ConCiliation mediation and arbitration and others

Author Alan Rycroft

ISSN: 2413-9874
Affiliations: Emeritus Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Cape Town
Source: Industrial Law Journal, Volume 47 Issue 4, 2026, p. 2274 – 2280
https://doi.org/10.47348/ILJ/v47/i4a4

Abstract

Kleinsmith v CCMA & others concerns an employer’s right to discipline an employee for misconduct which occurred in an earlier period of employment with the same employer. Factors impacting on fairness are considered, as well as statutory examples of the continuity principle.

Compensation, a Solatium and Labour Injustice: Reassessing total sa (Pty) ltd v meyer & others (2021) 42 ilJ 1696 (LAC) and the Meaning of ‘Just and Equitable’ Compensation

by | Sep 30, 2026 | ILJ, ILJ V47 I4

Compensation, a Solatium and Labour Injustice: Reassessing Total SA (Pty) Ltd v Meyer & others (2021) 42 ILJ 1696 (LAC) and the Meaning of ‘Just and Equitable’ Compensation

Author Alex Nair

ISSN: 2413-9874
Affiliations: Senior lecturer, North-West University; LLB, LLM (University of the Witwatersrand)
Source: Industrial Law Journal, Volume 47 Issue 4, 2026, p. 2280 – 2295
https://doi.org/10.47348/ILJ/v47/i4a5

Abstract

The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA) empowers courts and commissioners to award compensation for unfair dismissal and unfair labour practices that is ‘just and equitable’. However, uncertainty remains regarding its nature, purpose and quantification. This note examines competing interpretations focusing on the distinction between the loss-based and sui generis approaches to compensation. The article argues that in Total SA (Pty) Ltd v Meyer & others, the Labour Appeal Court adopted an unduly narrow approach by reducing compensation because the employee received severance above the statutory minimum, thereby overlooking non-patrimonial harm and inadequately addressing labour injustice.

A Silver Lining for Non-Parties to Collective agreements: Section 24 Dispute Resolution in South African Labour Law

by | Sep 30, 2026 | ILJ, ILJ V47 I4

A Silver Lining for Non-Parties to Collective agreements: Section 24 Dispute Resolution in South African Labour Law

Author S’celo Walter Sibiya

ISSN: 2413-9874
Affiliations: Senior Lecturer, Department of Mercantile Law, University of South Africa
Source: Industrial Law Journal, Volume 47 Issue 4, 2026, p. 2296 – 2310
https://doi.org/10.47348/ILJ/v47/i4a6

Abstract

Section 23 of the Labour Relations Act requires collective agreements drawn up by employer and employee parties to provide for procedures for the resolution of disputes between parties arising from the application or interpretation of such agreements. Parties should attempt to resolve a dispute through conciliation and, if the dispute remains unresolved, through arbitration. If there is no prescribed procedure or it is not operative or has been frustrated, ‘any party’ to the dispute may refer the dispute in writing to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). Contestation has arisen between conflicting judgments on the issue of the locus standi of the party who may refer a dispute over the interpretation or application of a collective agreement to the relevant bargaining council or the CCMA. The note supports the recent judicial interpretations that the term ‘any party’ in s 24 of the LRA, denoting who may refer such a dispute, includes non-parties even though they may not have been party to the conclusion of the agreement.