Main Article Content

Determining the true reason for an alleged section 187(1)(c) dismissal: A discussion of <i>National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Aveng Trident Steel (A Division of Aveng Africa (Pty) Ltd</i>) 2021 42 ILJ 67 (CC)


Kamalesh Newaj

Abstract

On 27 October 2020, the Constitutional Court handed down judgment in National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Aveng Trident Steel (A Division of Aveng Africa (Pty) Ltd) 2021 42 ILJ 67 (CC). Following the judgment, it is now commonplace that the amendment to section 187(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 does not preclude an employer from dismissing employees for a permissible reason, such as its operational requirements, should they refuse to accept a demand.


The court confirmed that in cases such as this where they are faced with two opposing reasons for the dismissal, an impermissible reason on the one hand and a permissible reason on the other, an enquiry must be conducted into what the true reason for the dismissal is. However, the approach to be followed in conducting this enquiry caused dissent. Half of the judges were of the view that the correct approach is to follow the causation test set out in SA Chemical Workers Union v Afrox Ltd 1999 20 ILJ 1718 (LAC), while the other half disavowed reliance on the causation test. Instead, they opted to support the enquiry conducted in Chemical Workers Industrial Union v Algorax (Pty) Ltd 2003 24 ILJ 1917 (LAC).


This case note seeks to establish which approach should be followed in determining the true reason for an alleged section 187(1)(c) automatically unfair dismissal.


Journal Identifiers


eISSN: 1727-3781