Bothma Consulting

30/07/2026

Executive Directors: Employment and Directorship Are Two Separate Legal Roles

An executive director holds two separate legal positions within a company: one as an employee and the other as a director. These roles are governed by different legal frameworks and must be dealt with independently.

Key points for employers:

✔️ Suspending an executive director as an employee does not suspend them as a director.

✔️ Dismissing an executive director does not automatically remove them from the board of directors.

✔️ Resigning or being removed as a director does not automatically terminate the employment relationship.

✔️ Employers must follow the correct legal procedures under both labour law and the Companies Act when an executive director exits the company.

✔️ Employment contracts should be aligned with the company’s Memorandum of Incorporation (MOI) to avoid unintended legal consequences.

Key Takeaway

An executive director’s employment and directorship are two separate legal relationships, each requiring its own legal process. Failing to follow the correct procedure can expose a company to unnecessary legal risk.

21/07/2026

If you think compliance is expensive, try non-compliance

11/07/2026

⚖️

30/06/2026

LEGAL TIP FOR EMPLOYERS | Employing Foreign Nationals in South Africa

Having valid documents to be in South Africa does not automatically mean a foreign national is legally allowed to work.

Employers should ensure that:
✔️ The employee holds valid authorisation to work in South Africa.
✔️ The work performed falls within the conditions of the relevant permit or visa.
✔️ All documentation is verified for authenticity.

Documentation may include:

📄 Work visas

📄 Zimbabwe Exemption Permits (ZEPs) or Lesotho Exemption Permits (LEPs)

📄 Refugee or asylum seeker permits

📄 Approved waivers, visa applications, or appeal applications (where applicable)

If an employee cannot provide valid work authorisation, do not dismiss them immediately. South African labour law still protects such employees against unfair dismissal. A fair process must be followed, and these matters are generally dealt with as operational (general) incapacity where the employee cannot meet a legal requirement for employment.

However, where an employee knowingly provides false information or fraudulent documentation, the matter constitutes misconduct and should be addressed through a disciplinary process.

⚖️ Important: Employers who knowingly employ foreign nationals without the necessary work authorisation may face criminal prosecution, fines, and even imprisonment under the Immigration Act.

Verify before you employ. It protects both your business and your employees.

10/06/2026

https://businesstech.co.za/news/government/863223/r100000-fine-warning-for-anyone-employing-a-domestic-worker-in-south-africa/?

Recently gazetted laws will hit employers hiring illegal foreign workers with a R100,000 fine for first offenders, including households that employ domestic workers.

20/04/2026

⚖️ Earnings Threshold Update (2026)

💰 New Threshold:
R269,600.90 per annum

Effective 1 May 2026

👥 Who it applies to:

Employees earning above this amount are excluded from certain provisions of the BCEA

📚 Sections they are excluded from:

Working hours
Overtime
Meal intervals
Daily & weekly rest periods
Sunday work
Night work
Public holidays

👉 (Sections 9–18 of the BCEA)

🧾 What counts as “earnings”:
Regular annual remuneration before deductions (tax, pension, medical, etc.)

Excludes:

Employer contributions
Subsistence & transport allowances
Overtime payments

⚠️ Important Employer Takeaway:
Just because an employee earns above the threshold does NOT mean no protection
It simply limits specific BCEA protections (mainly working time provisions)

Contracts + policies become critical to regulate hours, overtime, and expectations.

29/03/2026

Important Labour Court Reminder for Employers: Suspicion Is Not Proof

Heard: 27 August 2025
Delivered: 23 February 2026

In the case with Jane Makhubela vs Woolworths (Pty) Ltd, Acting Judge W.N. Sidzumo ruled that the giant retailer failed to prove misconduct on a balance of probabilities and upheld a decision of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) ordering the employee’s reinstatement with six months’ back pay.

A recent Labour Court judgment involving Woolworths has highlighted a critical principle in workplace discipline: suspicion alone is not sufficient grounds for dismissal.

The case involved a long-serving employee who was dismissed after CCTV footage showed what the employer considered “suspicious” behaviour in a stockroom. However, no stock loss was recorded and no evidence of concealment or theft was proven. The CCMA found the dismissal substantively unfair, and the Labour Court upheld the decision, ordering the employee’s reinstatement with six months’ back pay.

Key takeaways for employers:
✔️ Evidence matters – Suspicion, even when supported by CCTV footage, does not automatically prove misconduct.
✔️ Charges must be clear and accurate – Employers cannot rely on arguments (such as dishonesty) that were not part of the original charge.
✔️ Investigations must be thorough – Decisions to dismiss should be based on demonstrable evidence, not assumptions.
✔️ Reinstatement remains the primary remedy where a dismissal is found to be unfair.

This judgment is an important reminder that procedural and substantive fairness remain central to South African labour law. Employers must ensure that disciplinary processes are evidence-based, properly investigated, and fairly applied.