The Labour Appeal Court, in Mondi South Africa v CEPPWAWU (DA25/24) [2026] ZALAC 20 (6 May 2026), upheld the reinstatement of employees dismissed for carrying weapons during a protected strike, finding that the arbitrator’s decision to impose a sanction less than dismissal fell within the range of reasonable decisions under the circumstances.

The Labour Court, in Southern African Clothing and Textile Workers’ Union v Alpha Pharm (Pty) Ltd, considered whether black employees who perform similar work to their white counterparts, but earn significantly less, were unfairly discriminated against on the basis of race. The case focused on whether differences in job titles and historical employment arrangements justify pay disparities. CTH acted for the trade union and its members.

On 23 January 2026, the Constitutional Court handed down judgment in Director of Public Prosecutions, Johannesburg v Schutlz; Director of Public Prosecutions, Bloemfontein v Cholota. The constitutional question which seized the Court was whether the power to authorise outgoing extradition requests lies with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) or the National Executive.

On 28 November 2025, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) handed down judgment in Mafoko Security Patrols (Pty) Ltd and Others v Mjayeli Security (Pty) Ltd and Others. The judgment clarified the nature of the remedial discretion enjoyed by the Court under section 172(1)(b) of the Constitution, and the import of the judgment of the Constitutional Court in Allpay II.

Nicholas “Fink” Haysom was foundational to establishing Cheadle Thompson & Haysom (CTH), together with Halton Cheadle and Clive Thompson.

Section 217 of the Constitution sets the parameters within which organs of state must procure goods and services. The Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act (“PPPFA”) and the Preferential Procurement Regulations give practical effect to these parameters. The legal framework seeks to balance fairness and competitiveness with the state’s obligation to procure goods and services efficiently and responsibly. The Supreme Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Urban Icon (Pty) Ltd v South African National Roads Agency SOC Ltd highlights the complexities of this task.

On 11 August 2025, the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) in CEPPWAWU obo Tabata v Aspen Pharmacare Ltd (PA17/2024) [2025] ZALAC 43 (24 July 2025) determined, among other things, whether security furnished in terms of sections 145(7) and (8) of the Labour Relations Act (LRA) continues to have the effect of staying the enforcement of an arbitration award in circumstances where a review application has been archived under the (now repealed) Practice Manual.

The Constitutional Court’s judgment in Long v SAB (Pty) Ltd (2019) 40 ILJ 965 (CC) (“Long’’) is often cited in unfair suspension disputes. In Long, the Constitutional Court ruled that an employee generally does not suffer material prejudice as a result of a precautionary suspension, even if they were denied an opportunity to make representations before the suspension.

On 12 May 2025, a full bench of the High Court handed down judgment in Scott v The National Credit Regulator.1 It concerned whether, once a credit agreement was subject to a debt review process, the debtor remained in default under the original credit agreement or if the debt review process created a new agreement between the parties, thereby purging the default. This bears consequences for the applicability of the in duplum rule.

Section 11(5) of the Mine Health and Safety Act (MHSA) obliges every employer in the mining industry to investigate all reportable accidents and identify the underlying causes of the accident. Often, the employer engages third-party experts to conduct the investigations through the employer’s legal representatives in order to claim legal privilege over these reports. This raises the question whether a presiding officer can compel the employer to disclose a report during a mine health and safety inquiry.

On Monday 6 October 2025, Professor Halton Cheadle of Cheadle Thompson & Haysom Inc. together with Professor John Dugard, led by Ambassador Vusi Madonsela, will present South Africa’s case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the request for an advisory opinion on the Right to Strike under International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention No. 87.

On 16 April 2025, the Labour Court handed down judgment in Public Investment Corporation v More. The judgment concerned the application of the Prescription Act to disciplinary proceedings, and whether misconduct disciplinary charges prescribe.

On 13 February 2025, the Labour Appeal Court handed down judgment in Director-General: Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment v The Sheriff, Pretoria North-East. The judgment concerned whether a security bond furnished by the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment complied with section 145(7) of the Labour Relations Act. Section 145(7) permits a review applicant to furnish security to suspend the operation of an arbitration award pending the outcome of the application.

On 26 February 2025, the Essential Services Committee designated certain port services as essential in terms of section 71 of the Labour Relations Act. The application was instituted by the Transnet National Ports Authority (TNPA) and Transnet Port Terminals (TPT), the operating divisions of Transnet SOC Ltd. CTH acted on behalf of the TNPA and TPT.

While employees are entitled to postponements in a disciplinary hearing if they demonstrate good cause, there is a limit to how long an employee-driven delay can be justified. A recent decision of the Labour Court has raised the question of whether an employer may implement suspension without pay in the face of dilatory tactics occasioned by the employee.

On 30 August 2024, the Magistrates’ Court handed down judgment in Raborife Kedibone Pauline v Moeketsi MC and Another (Case No.: LP/TBZ/RC/21/2024). The judgment concerned an exception raised by the South African Democratic Teachers’ Union (SADTU), the second defendant in the matter, relating to whether a trade union can be held vicariously liable for the actions of a shop steward.

On 8 October 2024, the Labour Court handed down judgment in ArcelorMittal South Africa Ltd v National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa. The applicant, ArcelorMittal, sought to review and set aside an essential services designation that its blast furnaces and coke batteries do not constitute an essential service. The issue concerned the meaning of the phrase “the whole or any part of the population” as it is stated in the definition of Essential Service in the LRA.

Polygraph testing is a common tool utilised by employers to investigate suspected misconduct and maintain discipline in the workplace.

Navigating the Legal Complexities of Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policies in South Africa

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism is routinely invoked to silence legitimate criticism of the State of Israel.

Untangling the Complexity: Understanding 'Recurring and Ongoing' Labour Disputes in Light of Recent Judgments.