Pieters De Villiers & Associates / Genote - PDV

Pieters De Villiers & Associates / Genote - PDV Employment Law Consulting Practice / Arbeidskonsultante

02/09/2026

Manager fired for swearing during heated exchange loses Labour Court battle

A Cape Town operations manager who was dismissed after swearing at a female subordinate and physically grabbing her during a heated workplace confrontation has lost his bid to have the dismissal overturned.

Acting Judge W Jacobs of the Labour Court in Cape Town dismissed RL’s review application against an arbitration award that found his dismissal by DSV Solutions (Pty) Ltd to be substantively fair.

The court found that the arbitrator’s decision fell well within the range of decisions that a reasonable decision-maker could make on the evidence before him.

Workplace confrontation:

RL was appointed as an operations manager by DSV Solutions in January 2021.

The dispute arose from an incident in December 2022 involving RL and one of his colleagues, PV.

According to the judgment, PV wanted to work overtime, but RL, as her manager, refused her request. She did not accept his decision, and the disagreement escalated into a heated argument.

During the confrontation, both employees used profanities. RL told PV to “stop fu***ng interrupting me”, while she also repeatedly used the same expletive.

The situation escalated when PV turned around to leave. RL approached her and placed his hand or hands on her shoulders in an attempt to turn her around.

Two employees witnessed the incident, while several others were in the immediate vicinity.

Both RL and PV were subsequently subjected to disciplinary hearings, and both were dismissed. RL’s dismissal was based on charges of using abusive and offensive language on the company premises and assault.

Manager admits swearing:

RL admitted during the disciplinary process that he had sworn at PV, although there was a dispute about how many times he had used the offending language.

He also admitted taking PV by the shoulder and physically turning her around. The parties disagreed over whether he had used one hand or both hands.

RL maintained that dismissal was too harsh and referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight and Logistics Industry, which was later transferred to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA).

At the arbitration hearing, he challenged only the substantive fairness of his dismissal.

The arbitrator, Patric Stilwell, issued his award in September 2023 and found that the dismissal was fair.

Arbitrator found dismissal fair:

The arbitrator found that dismissal fell within the range of fair sanctions for RL’s conduct.

Among the factors considered were that DSV’s disciplinary code prohibited swearing and assault, PV had also been dismissed for her role in the incident, and existing case law supported the proposition that such conduct could justify dismissal.

The arbitrator also found that RL’s conduct amounted to a violation of another person’s constitutional rights.

RL subsequently approached the Labour Court, seeking to review and set aside the arbitration award and substitute it with a decision in his favour.

RL argued that arbitrator overlooked key issues
RL raised several grounds of review.

Among other things, he argued that the arbitrator had failed to properly consider his written submissions and had not adequately considered that DSV bore the burden of proving that his dismissal was fair.

He also argued that there had been no evidence that the trust relationship between him and his employer had broken down, no evidence of a zero-tolerance policy applicable to the misconduct, and no evidence that DSV had consistently applied its disciplinary rules.

He further relied on provocation, arguing that his conduct occurred in the context of a heated confrontation with PV.

He maintained that he had sworn only once and had used only one hand when touching PV.

Court rejects provocation defence:

The Labour Court rejected RL’s reliance on provocation.

The court found that it was common cause that RL had physically attempted to turn PV around when she was trying to walk away from their heated argument.

Whether he had used one hand or two was irrelevant, the court said.

“This is assault,” the judgment stated.

The court also found that the number of times RL had sworn was of little consequence.

As a manager, his use of the language in the circumstances was unacceptable, the court found.

RL had himself described the workplace as a high-volume and volatile environment, but the court was not persuaded that this justified his conduct.

The court found that his conduct was not defensive but aggressive in nature.

No need for employer to prove trust relationship had collapsed:

The court also rejected RL’s argument that DSV had failed to prove that the trust relationship between the parties had broken down.

The judgment held that dismissal is an operational response to an untenable situation and that whether misconduct has damaged the trust relationship to the point that the employment relationship has become intolerable can sometimes be inferred from the facts.

Specific evidence of an irretrievable breakdown is not always necessary where the misconduct is of such a nature that an employer could reasonably be expected to lose trust in the employee.

In this case, the court found that RL’s conduct towards a female subordinate, in the presence of other employees, could not be tolerated.

Furthermore, RL had also argued that DSV had not produced evidence of a zero-tolerance policy relating to the misconduct.

The court rejected this argument, finding that there was no requirement for an employer to have a zero-tolerance policy before dismissal could be considered.

Each case must be assessed in its particular context, taking into account the circumstances and seriousness of the misconduct.

The court said that where the misconduct is serious, the employee holds a senior position and fails to appreciate the inappropriateness of his conduct, dismissal may constitute a reasonable operational response.

Court upholds arbitrator’s decision:

The court held that the arbitrator’s reasoning, assessment of the facts and conclusions were supported by the evidence and fell well within the permissible range of reasonable decisions.

The court therefore concluded that there was no basis to interfere with the arbitration award.

The application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

CREDIT TO: IOL

14/08/2026

New problem for households now employing South African domestic workers

Households have reported that some South African domestic workers have asked their employers not to register them with the Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF).

This is because earning the National Minimum Wage (NMW) or more disqualifies them from receiving SASSA grants.

The issue has emerged as many households search for local domestic workers following the departure of foreign workers amid heightened immigration enforcement and anti-immigrant protests.

BusinessTech received a letter from several readers who said they had noticed a growing trend among prospective domestic workers.

One reader explained that they had previously employed a Malawian domestic worker who had initially held a valid work permit but later struggled to renew her documents through the Department of Home Affairs.

“I took over the domestic services of a Malawian lady after my son and his wife divorced. She originally had a valid work permit, but each time she attempted to extend it, she was faced with challenges at Home Affairs,” the reader said.

The employer said they encouraged the worker to return to Malawi to renew her passport and obtain the necessary work documents, giving her two months’ written notice before she left South Africa in March.

“I paid my Malawian domestic worker above the minimum wage and went above and beyond to assist her whenever she required additional support,” the reader said.

However, they added that the current environment has made finding a replacement more complicated.

“Since all the anti-immigrant protests and repatriation/deportation process began, I know many households that had to let their foreign employees go and are now trying to find a suitable local domestic worker.”

“Many have told the same story. The potential candidates have requested that they not be registered for UIF because they wish to continue to draw their full SASSA grant over and above their wages.”

The reader also questioned whether registering a worker for UIF automatically affects their eligibility for the grant.

“If I am to comply with the labour law, then it is only fair that SASSA recipients are no longer milking the government system,” they said.

The concern comes at a time when South Africa has seen significant movement of migrant workers following the widely reported June 30 deadline warning.

Authorities have recently processed around 67,000 migrants for deportation or voluntary repatriation, while Zimbabwe has reported that nearly 100,000 of its citizens have returned home since late May.

The impact has also been felt by the online domestic-worker platform SweepSouth. Chief executive Lourandi Kriel said demand and bookings were heavily disrupted during the recent unrest.

“We recorded the highest rate of lost bookings on our platform since the Covid period,” Kriel said, adding that transport disruptions and safety concerns were the biggest reasons.

“On June 30 itself, the number of lost bookings in a single day surpassed what we typically see in a whole month.”

BusinessTech examined the relevant legislation to determine whether employers should agree to requests not to register workers for UIF. The answer is clear: they should not.

Under the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, employers must register any employee who works more than 24 hours in a month for UIF.

Failing to do so can result in backdated UIF contributions, interest and other labour law penalties. The National Minimum Wage Act also requires domestic workers to receive at least the national minimum wage.

From 1 March 2026, this stands at R30.23 per ordinary hour worked. Someone working a standard 45-hour week would earn about R5,890 per month before deductions.

Whether a worker qualifies for a SASSA grant depends on the specific grant and their income.

The Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant has a monthly income threshold of R624. A full-time domestic worker earning the minimum wage would therefore not qualify.

The Child Support Grant operates differently. It is subject to a means test, with a single applicant currently required to earn no more than R5,800 per month.

This means a full-time domestic worker earning the minimum wage could exceed the threshold, while a part-time worker earning below it may still qualify even if registered for UIF.

For employers, the legal obligation is straightforward. Regardless of an employee’s request, anyone working more than 24 hours a month must be registered for UIF.

Deliberately avoiding registration to help someone claim benefits they are not entitled to could expose both parties to legal consequences.

CREDIT TO: BUSINESSTECH

05/08/2026

South African employers face scrutiny over alleged unfair dismissals of migrant workers

Labour organisations have accused some employers of exploiting the current anti-illegal migrant climate to dismiss migrant workers, raising questions about whether businesses are complying with labour laws when terminating employment.

The Simunye Workers Forum (SWF) says it has documented several cases across Gauteng in recent weeks in which migrant workers have allegedly been dismissed, retrenched, or prevented from returning to work following the protests.

"It has become clear to us over the past few weeks that employers are seizing upon the current mobilisations to carry out unfair dismissals and unlawful pseudo-retrenchments," the organisation said.

Among the cases highlighted is that of approximately 90 Malawian workers employed at Harvest Fresh Farms in Meyerton.

According to SWF, the workers, many of whom had been employed for between five and 15 years, were informed on June 18 that a Department of Home Affairs verification had found they were not legally authorised to work in South Africa. The organisation alleges they were initially offered R3,000, which included their final salary and severance pay, before the amount was increased to R5,000, and that workers signed mutual separation agreements under pressure.

Responding to questions from this publication, Harvest Fresh Farms Human Resources Manager Machine Hlongwane confirmed that about 90 foreign national employees were affected but denied they had been dismissed.

Hlongwane said the company began verifying employees' work permits in November 2025, months before the recent protests, and that an independent verification process found several permits and supporting documents to be fraudulent.

"The company thereafter engaged with the affected employees, explained the verification results and consulted with them regarding the implications. Following this process, the parties mutually agreed to conclude the employment relationship through Mutual Separation Agreements," Hlongwane said.

He rejected suggestions that the process was influenced by anti-migrant protests, saying the company remained committed to lawful labour practices and treating all employees with dignity and respect.

However, migrant rights advocates say immigration status does not remove workers' protection under South African labour law.

Head of Advocacy at the Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town, James Chapman, said employers cannot use anti-illegal migrant protests or public pressure as justification for bypassing labour legislation.

"While employers are prohibited from knowingly employing undocumented foreign nationals, that does not exempt them from their obligations under labour law," Chapman said.

"If an employer has employed someone for years despite knowing, or having reason to know, of their immigration status, they cannot simply rely on that status to avoid following fair dismissal procedures when public pressure mounts."

He said undocumented workers remain protected against unfair dismissal and may still refer disputes to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration.

SWF says the Harvest Fresh matter is not isolated.

The organisation alleges that at a prominent plastics manufacturer in Gauteng, about 23 migrant workers were prevented from returning to work after the employer cited security concerns linked to anti-migrant protests.

In another case involving a plastics manufacturer in Alrode, SWF claims 15 young Malawian workers were left stranded after the business allegedly closed without paying them following its relocation from Durban.

At a Gauteng farming operation, the organisation says 17 migrant workers from Malawi, Lesotho, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe were instructed not to report for duty until "the March and March issue slows down", leaving them without an income.

Another case involves Guard Master/Wire Ventures, where SWF alleges eight migrant workers were retrenched because they lacked valid work permits despite having worked for the company since 2019.

The organisation argues that only undocumented migrant workers were selected and alleges the retrenchments reflect employers taking advantage of the current anti-migrant climate.

SWF further alleges workers had previously complained that a manager threatened to dismiss three employees every week, that another manager carried a firearm on the factory floor, and that employees were not receiving the correct Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council wage rates.

In response, Wire Ventures denied the retrenchments were based on nationality, saying the affected employees had repeatedly failed to provide valid work authorisation despite being requested to do so over an extended period.

The company said it initiated a formal consultation process in terms of Section 189 of the Labour Relations Act, considered alternatives to retrenchment, and paid affected employees all amounts due, including notice pay, accrued leave, and severance pay where applicable.

It also said workers had been offered re-employment should they obtain valid work permits within four months.

The company denied allegations that managers threatened workers with dismissal, saying it had no record of such incidents.

It also denied claims that a firearm had been used to intimidate employees, confirming only that a manager lawfully carried a licensed firearm for personal protection. After workers expressed concern, the firearm was required to be locked away during working hours and was no longer carried on the factory floor.

Regarding wage disputes, Wire Ventures said it joined the Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council in June and was working with the council to ensure employees were correctly classified and remunerated.

The company denied deliberately underpaying workers and said it remained committed to complying with labour legislation.

Wire Ventures also disputed SWF's standing, saying it was instead engaging with the Casual Workers Advice Office over the concerns raised.

The other employers referred to in this article did not respond to requests for comment by publication.

The article will be updated should their responses be received

CREDIT TO: IOL

28/07/2026

'More blitzes coming': Labour dept finds only 3 compliant workplaces, arrests 137

A total of 137 foreign nationals were arrested and only three of 114 workplaces were found compliant during a nationwide inspection blitz by the Department of Employment and Labour on Friday.

Deputy Minister Jomo Sibiya said the high-impact operation, one of the largest multi-departmental blitzes to enforce compliance across the country, would continue.

The operations were conducted nationally, with major enforcement activities in Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal and the Western Cape, alongside operations in other provinces, for the promotion of lawful employment, protection of workers’ rights, and addressing workplace non-compliance.

“The national operation saw 114 workplaces inspected and only three were compliant. The operations led to the arrest of 137 foreign nationals,” said department spokesperson Teboho Thejane.

He said the operation aimed to address systemic non-compliance with employment laws, immigration regulations, and municipal by-laws, while arresting individuals for offences like illegal residency and highlighting government responses to critical issues.

Thejane said the National High-Impact Blitz Inspection saw a total of 164 labour inspectors, 47 immigration officers, 123 SAPS officials, 56 municipal/law enforcement officials, two Border Management Authority officials, specialised stakeholders (environmental health practitioners, agriculture officials, Liquor and Gambling Board representatives, Brand Protection officials, Consumer Protection officials, private security, and Centlec).

He said inspections revealed recurring non-compliance with key provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA), the Unemployment Insurance Act (UIA), the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA), and the National Minimum Wage Act (NMWA). There was also non-compliance with the immigration act and by-laws.

“Consolidated data from provinces showed that the national inspection blitzes impacted 4,291 South African employees; the total number of foreign employee nationals was 546. The number revealed that 119 notices were issued, 10 prohibition notices were issued, and 29 contravention notices were issued,” Thejane said.

“Compliance with the OHS Act was at a paltry 2.6%, compliance with COIDA was at nine percent, while compliance with UIF was 0.2% and compliance with BCEA, including the (NMW and sectoral determinations), was at 31%.”

In the Centurion and Pretoria areas, Sibiya, Home Affairs Deputy Minister Njabulo Nzuza, and Tshwane Mayor Dr Nasiphi Moya spearheaded Gauteng operations.

Speaking to the media after inspecting one of the companies, Sibiya said they found that the company did not comply with several South African laws, including labour and immigration laws.

“The big challenge that we have found is that workers are being underpaid here. The Minimum Wage Act is not being observed. They are paid far less than the level of the minimum wage that we have set, which is currently R30.23 an hour. They are paid R28 an hour,” Sibiya said.

“They are made to work far longer hours, and they are not paid overtime. They are locked inside the company at night. They work a 12-hour shift, but at times they work beyond the 12-hour shift, which they are not paid for. They are not registered, some of them with UIF (Unemployment Insurance Fund). They are not registered with the compensation fund. Some don’t even have contracts. They don’t get PPE (personal protective equipment), the uniform.”

Sibiya said the department would engage employers, but would enforce the law and ensure compliance.

“We are going to continue to conduct all these across the country. We have been doing this work for some time. We have ramped up things. When we collaborate, we see results. This is about enforcing the laws of the country. As a government, we cannot allow the employment of illegals to continue. We want to cut the demand because the employment of illegal foreigners is being done deliberately,” Sibiya said.

Nzuza said the number of arrests may appear small, but the message had been received.

CREDIT TO: IOL

14/07/2026

Western Cape Labour Court dismisses former employee's claim of unbearable working conditions against tech giant

A former employee at a leading technology provider, who claimed she was forced to resign because of unbearable working conditions, has lost her bid to overturn an earlier ruling made by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA).

The Western Cape Labour Court found there was not enough evidence to prove that her workplace had become so intolerable that she had no option but to quit.

According to the woman’s submissions, she resigned “in a desperate attempt to be allowed to return to work”.

Instead, the court found that her premature resignation was “fatal” to her case.

The employee, who was a technical general manager, sought to have the court overturn the decision that rejected her constructive dismissal claim, in which she argued she was forced to resign because of the working conditions.

She argued that she had effectively been forced out of her job, that this was unfair, and that she should receive compensation.

She did not seek to be reinstated as she had already reached retirement age.

At the CCMA, the commissioner found that although the employee felt strongly that her continued employment was intolerable, an objective test had to be applied to determine whether this was the case.

In applying that test, the commissioner did not, on a balance of probabilities, find that she was ill-treated, harassed, or humiliated, or that she was prevented from fulfilling her job. The commissioner found that the employee was not constructively dismissed, and therefore the CCMA lacked jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute.

The Labour Court found that the employee did not provide enough evidence to make out her case.

The employee, who suffers from depression and did not dispute that she had, on about 10 occasions, had loud outbursts at her workplace towards other employees, testified that after a new managing director was appointed at her place of employment, “(the managing director) took a dislike to her because she challenged his thinking and strategy”.

Court records detail: “With reference to (the employee’s) pleaded case, (the employer) submits that she resigned ‘in a desperate attempt to get (the employer) to allow her to return to work’, which undermines the argument that non-compliance with the settlement agreement rendered continued employment intolerable.

“The submission is that if she had no work and found her duties unfulfilling, she would not have resigned in a desperate attempt to return to work. (The employer) also takes issue with (the employee) working out her notice period, despite alleging that the working relationship was intolerable.”

According to court details, after the woman arrived for work on July 1, 2022, she was “described as visibly shaking and very emotional”.

Despite a physician's letter which rendered her fit for work, she was instructed by an acting HR manager at the time to return to work the following day. Meanwhile, the employer arranged for the employee to consult with a psychologist through a health and wellness scheme.

The psychologist advised that a medical report would be made available two days after the consultation, which took place on July 13, 2022.

The acting HR manager advised the woman that upon receipt of the psychologist’s report, a meeting would be held with her to discuss “the way forward”.

However, in the absence of the report, on July 15, 2022, the employee submitted her 30-day notice of resignation.

Judge Tapiwa Gandize said: “In the court’s view, resigning before the psychologist's report was available was fatal to (her) case that continued employment had become intolerable. The report was available on July 18, 2022, and recorded that she wanted to work, but that an occupational therapist was best placed to determine her fitness to work.

“It is unknown what (the employer) would have done upon receipt of the report had (she) not resigned in the meantime. It is also unknown whether she would have been allowed to return to work. (Her) contention that she had no reason to believe (her employer) would change its decision to keep her at home, regardless of the psychologist’s report, was speculative and unreasonable.”

CREDIT TO: IOL

Our current team from left to right : Riaan Pieters (Managing Director - Founder 2007) Dylan Rothman (Senior Associate -...
11/07/2026

Our current team from left to right : Riaan Pieters (Managing Director - Founder 2007) Dylan Rothman (Senior Associate - 9 years service) Beverley Marais (Office Manager 5 Years Service)

09/07/2026

LANDMARK CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULING PERTAINING TO IMMIGRANTS!

Constitutional Court stops deportation of asylum seekers

Asylum seekers without transit visas may not be deported, apex court rules

The Constitutional Court has confirmed that sections of the Refugees Act are unconstitutional.

Amendments to the act allowed immigration officers to deport asylum seekers who did not have valid transit visas.

This violated the international legal principle of “non-refoulement”, the court ruled.

The court admonished Home Affairs for litigating “extremely poorly” and making “unsupported assertions regarding Afghan and Bangladeshi nationals’ involvement in human trafficking”.

The Constitutional Court has unanimously confirmed that asylum seekers cannot be deported before they have properly accessed the asylum system.

The court declared sections of the Refugees Act, which allowed for immigration officials to deport an asylum seeker if they are in the country without a transit visa, unconstitutional. A transit visa is issued at a port of entry to allow a person to travel to a refugee reception centre and apply for asylum.

The court said the act violated the international legal principle of “non-refoulement”, which prohibits governments from sending people back to countries where they face persecution or danger.

The ruling will have immediate effect. It confirms the Western Cape High Court’s ruling last year in an application brought by the Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town.

Scalabrini had argued that the amendments to the act, which came into effect in January 2020, blocked people who did not have valid transit visas from accessing the asylum system.

Scalabrini argued that the amendments gave Home Affairs officials at refugee reception offices the “sole discretion” to determine whether asylum seekers without transit visas should be deported or allowed to proceed to the next step of the asylum seeker system.

The minister and director-general of Home Affairs opposed the application. They argued that the provisions created a “safety valve”, not an automatic bar. People without transit visas were not shut out as long as they could show valid and compelling reasons.

In the apex court’s judgment, handed down on Tuesday, Justice Steven Majiedt said that before the amendments came into effect, any person who presented at a Refugee Reception Office could enter the asylum system, regardless of whether they had initially reported themselves at a port of entry, and regardless of whether and for how long they had been in South Africa illegally.

Majiedt said the amendments had “fundamentally altered this position” by introducing “procedural filters”. It had the practical effect of preventing an asylum seeker from proceeding to a merits-based determination and exposing them to deportation if they could not give valid reasons for not being in possession of an asylum transit visa.

He said at various stages of the process, the law required the applicant to variously provide “good cause”, “valid reasons” and “compelling reasons”, but nowhere were these defined, “creating a real risk of arbitrary and inconsistent decision making”.

“All asylum seekers are protected by the principle of non-refoulement and the protection applies as long as the claim to refugee status has not been finally rejected after a proper procedure on the merits,” said Majiedt.

He said the principle could only be departed from if there were reasonable grounds to regard a refugee as a danger to state security or the community, or having been convicted of a particularly serious crime.

Majiedt said there was no justifiable basis for preventing asylum seekers from applying for refugee status “based on procedural missteps”. The respondents claim that this is only a “safety valve”, was ill-conceived, he said.

Majiedt said the sections of the Act gave unguided discretion to immigration officers.

“It also provides no consequence for having, or not having, valid reasons for not being in possession of a transit visa. This cannot be said to be advancing a legitimate purpose. It subjects vulnerable asylum seekers to yet another bureaucratic step. This is an arbitrary exercise of state power.”

The court took aim at the government respondents, saying they had “litigated extremely poorly” and “the gross laxity and disturbing ineptitude were matters of grave concern and should not be repeated”.

Majiedt said that, over and above the myriad procedural shortcomings, the respondent’s lawyers had made sweeping and unsupported assertions regarding Afghan and Bangladeshi nationals’ involvement in human trafficking in South Africa.

“Advancing such claims, particularly in the absence of evidentiary foundation, not only undermined the integrity of the State’s case but also introduced rhetoric that risks being perceived as xenophobic and racially charged.”

“This is not inconsequential. Submissions of this nature, when advanced before this court, carry the potential to shape broader societal narratives about refugees and may adversely affect the protection of their rights.”

The court ordered the respondents to pay the costs of the application.

CREDIT TO: GROUND UP

Address

Main Road, Hermanus (Gateway Chambers, 1st Floor Gateway Centre/Entrance Between Optometrist And Gateway Spar)
Hermanus
7200

Opening Hours

Monday 08:30 - 16:30
Tuesday 08:30 - 16:30
Wednesday 08:30 - 16:30
Thursday 08:30 - 16:30
Friday 08:30 - 16:30

Telephone

028-3130602

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Pieters De Villiers & Associates / Genote - PDV posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share