Introduction: A Season of Transformation in South African Labour Law
Between June and October 2025, several landmark decisions by the Constitutional Court, High Court, and Labour Court have significantly influenced the direction of South African labour law.
These rulings collectively highlight three recurring themes:
- Equality and dignity in employment,
- Transformation and compliance, and
- Fair dismissal and procedural justice.
For employers, these judgments provide both lessons and warnings — compliance with labour law is no longer just a regulatory issue but a reputational one too.
1. The Constitutional Court: Equality in Parental Leave
Van Wyk and Others v Minister of Employment and Labour; Commission for Gender Equality v Minister of Employment and Labour and Others
Citation: [2025] ZACC 20 (3 October 2025)
Subject: Parental and Maternity Leave Equality
In one of the most pivotal labour decisions in recent memory, the Constitutional Court declared that key sections of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) and the Unemployment Insurance Act (UIF Act) — governing maternity, parental, adoption, and commissioning leave — were unconstitutional.
The Court found that the existing framework unfairly discriminated against fathers, adoptive parents, and commissioning parents, infringing on their right to dignity and the freedom to choose how to care for their child.
While the invalidity has been suspended for 36 months to allow Parliament time to legislate a new framework, interim equal parental leave provisions were immediately ordered.
Impact for Employers:
- HR departments must begin revising parental leave policies to ensure equality.
- Contracts and employee handbooks should reflect the principle of shared parental leave.
- Non-compliance could expose employers to unfair discrimination claims.
This case marks a constitutional milestone — signalling the end of gendered assumptions in caregiving roles.
Mavundla v Gotcha Security Services (Pty) Ltd
Citation: [2025] ZACC 11 (18 June 2025)
Subject: Labour Practice and Procedural Fairness
Though less publicised, this decision highlights the Constitutional Court’s growing willingness to engage with labour practice matters, affirming that fair procedure and employee dignity remain central to employment disputes.
2. The High Court: Employment Equity Targets Upheld
NEASA and Sakeliga v Minister of Employment and Labour
Date: 28 August 2025
Subject: Employment Equity Sectoral Numerical Targets
In this critical Gauteng High Court ruling, business organisations NEASA and Sakeliga sought to suspend the newly gazetted sectoral numerical targets under the Employment Equity Amendment Act.
The Court dismissed the application, holding that an interdict was not an appropriate legal remedy to halt a final administrative action by the Minister.
Key Takeaways:
- The new sectoral targets remain valid and enforceable.
- Compliance starts 1 September 2025, meaning designated employers must now:
- Review and update Employment Equity plans,
- Assess workforce demographics, and
- Implement strategies to meet transformation goals.
Impact for Employers:
Failure to comply could jeopardise eligibility for state tenders and risk compliance penalties. The judgment reinforces that transformation is not optional — it’s legally mandated.
3. The Labour Court: Dismissals, Fairness, and Age Discrimination
Ngobeni v Bidvest Protea Coin (Pty) Ltd
Citation: [2025] ZALCJHB 443 (6 October 2025)
Subject: Automatically Unfair Dismissal (Age Discrimination)
The Labour Court dealt with a claim by an employee who alleged automatically unfair dismissal based on age after his fixed-term contract was not renewed.
The judgment reaffirmed that an employee bears the initial burden of proof to establish a prima facie case of age-based discrimination. Once raised, the onus shifts to the employer to prove the decision was based on fair, non-discriminatory reasons.
Employer Lesson:
Maintain transparent and well-documented reasoning for non-renewal or termination of contracts. Age-related decisions without evidence of objective justification invite significant legal risk.
Western Cape Education Department v Snyders and Others
Citation: [2025] ZALCCT 96 (3 October 2025)
Subject: Review of Arbitration Award – Misconduct and Inconsistent Discipline
This case involved a review of a teacher misconduct arbitration. The Labour Court scrutinised how inconsistent disciplinary action can undermine fairness. The arbitrator’s decision to issue a lesser sanction was upheld, reinforcing that consistency and proportionality are key in disciplinary outcomes.
Lesson for Employers:
Consistency in disciplinary action across comparable cases is essential. Arbitrary or selective discipline will not withstand review.
Biyana v National Consumer Commission (CCMA Decision)
Date: June 2025
Subject: Unfair Dismissal – Automatic Termination Clauses
This CCMA decision, referenced in several legal updates, reaffirmed that automatic termination clauses in employment contracts cannot override the Labour Relations Act (LRA). Even if a contract states that employment will end automatically, employers must still follow a fair procedure before termination.
Lesson:
Contract wording cannot supersede the LRA’s procedural fairness requirements. Employers must conduct fair hearings even where “auto-termination” clauses exist.
Conclusion: A Transformative Season for Labour Law
The period from June to October 2025 underscored one undeniable truth — South African labour law continues to evolve rapidly, guided by principles of fairness, equality, and accountability.
Employers must adapt to this dynamic landscape by:
- Updating internal policies and HR documents,
- Training managers on emerging legal standards, and
- Seeking professional advice before disciplinary action or policy implementation.
At Labour Law with Luzan, we help employers stay compliant and confident in navigating these changes — from Employment Equity compliance to policy drafting and training.
📞 Visit luzan.co.za for expert legal guidance tailored to your business.
