Pieters De Villiers & Associates / Genote - PDV

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

03/06/2026

Government to step up labour law enforcement

Employers who flout labour laws and merely budget for and pay fines when found out will have to change course and comply: the Department of Employment and Labour is tightening the screws.

This was the message at a “deep dive” with journalists held in Pretoria by Minister of Employment and Labour Nomakhosazana M**h and her deputy Jomo Sibiya.

M**h made it clear that employers who appoint undocumented foreigners rather than South Africans and exploit them by paying less than the minimum wage will be dealt with severely.

This comes against the backdrop of increasing protests about the large number of undocumented foreigners in the country, who are accused of taking the available jobs and thereby leaving South Africans unemployed.

The country’s unemployment figures have been stuck north of 30% since 2021. Among young people it is even higher, especially among those without tertiary education.

The department has already started to drastically increase the number of labour inspectors, and reform of current labour laws will see fines increased substantially.

In future, the department will also lay criminal charges against such employers.

Sibiya says the department “is changing the whole picture in terms of compliance”.

He says this practice is especially prevalent in the construction and hospitality sectors, which are among the most labour-intensive sectors in the economy.

The department is working with industry bodies in the hospitality sector, taking an advocacy approach. The department is aiming for a better understanding of labour laws and says it is seeing some progress.

Sibiya says individually owned restaurants are problematic and employers often find themselves on the wrong side of labour laws.

He adds that illegal labour practices are rife in the construction industry, which will be a focus area for enforcement.

The department will however also engage industry bodies in this sector and will follow a “carrot and stick” approach, says Sibiya.

He emphasises that by law, only foreigners with scarce skills should get work permits to allow their employment in South Africa. He notes that the department’s hands are somewhat tied, because it does not have the powers to enforce immigration laws.

More ‘boots on the ground’

M**h says the retail, agricultural and transport industries are also in the spotlight for unlawful employment practices.

A total of 10 000 inspector assistants were appointed in the previous financial year, and by the end of April approximately 3 800 had started their training and deployment, according to M**h.

“A further 3 500 recruits recently completed their security screening and were awaiting appointment letters before end of May 2026, while 2 700 are undergoing security screening to be completed by June 2026,” she adds.

“These young inspector assistants represent the new boots on the ground in the fight against labour exploitation, non-compliance and workplace injustice.”

CREDIT TO: MONEYWEB

23/04/2026

INCREASE IN BASIC CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT ACT EARNINGS THRESHOLD FOR 2026

Section 6 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act makes provision for the Minister of Employment and Labour to determine an earnings threshold.

The effect of such threshold is that it excludes employees earning above the determined amount from the protection offered to employees under certain sections of chapter 2 of the Act. Chapter 2 of the BCEA primarily deals with the regulation of working hours of employees.

Additionally, as per sections 198, 198 A, B, C and D of the Labour Relations Act, employees earning below the earnings threshold are considered to be vulnerable and are entitled to additional protection pertaining to non-standard employment arrangements such as fixed term contracts, labour broker and part-time employees.

As from the 1st of May 2026, the earnings threshold will be increased from R261748.45 (R21812.37 per month) to R269 600.90 per annum (R22 466.74 per month).

“Earnings” means gross pay before deductions, such as income tax, pension, medical insurance, and similar payments, but excludes similar payments (contributions) made by the employer in respect of the employee.

The sections of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act from which such employees are excluded are:

Ordinary hours of work
Overtime
Compressed working week
Averaging of hours of work
Meal intervals
Daily and weekly rest period
Pay for work on Sundays
Night work -17(2) that deals with transport and night shift allowances
Public holidays – 18(3) that deals with payment for work on a public holiday that falls on a day on which the employee would ordinarily not have worked.

Employees earning below the threshold amount:

Such employees are entitled to the full protection of every section of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA). Additionally, such employees are also considered to be vulnerable for the purposes of non-standard employment arrangements as per the Labour Relations Act.

Employees earning above the threshold amount:

Employees earning above the threshold amount do not have a statutory right to demand minimum employment conditions insofar as it relates to the provisions of sections 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17(2), and 18(3) of the BCEA. Employment conditions dealt with under the aforementioned sections may be negotiated between employer and employee. The agreed employment conditions may well be less favourable than those applicable to employees earning below the threshold.

CREDIT TO: LABOUR GUIDE

08/04/2026

Permanent, fixed-term or freelance? What your employment contract really means for your rights

You nailed the interview, negotiated the salary, and now the HR manager slides a thick stack of papers across the desk for you to sign. In the excitement of securing a new job, many people flip straight to the last page, sign on the dotted line and hope for the best.

But not all employment contracts are created equal. In South African labour law, the type of contract you sign determines your job security, benefits and rights if things go wrong.

Here is a breakdown of the three main types of employment contracts — and the legal risks to watch out for.

Permanent (indefinite) contracts

This is the standard employment contract and offers the greatest job security.

How it works: It has a start date but no end date. It continues indefinitely until you resign, retire or the employer lawfully terminates the contract through fair dismissal for misconduct, incapacity or retrenchment.

Your rights: You receive full protection under the Labour Relations Act (LRA) and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA). This includes paid annual leave, sick leave, family responsibility leave and a statutory notice period if the employer terminates your employment.

Fixed-term contracts

A fixed-term contract is designed for a specific temporary purpose. It ends either on a set date (for example, a six-month contract) or when a defined project is completed.

The risk: Historically, some employers misused fixed-term contracts by keeping employees on rolling three-month agreements for extended periods to avoid granting permanent benefits and to simplify termination by not renewing contracts.

The legal protection (Section 198B): The law now limits this practice. If you earn below the BCEA earnings threshold (currently R261,748.45 per year), an employer generally may not employ you on a fixed-term contract for longer than three months without a justifiable reason.

Justifiable reasons include replacing an employee on maternity leave, managing a temporary increase in workload or working on a specific externally funded project. If no justifiable reason exists and employment continues beyond three months, the law may regard the employee as permanent, regardless of what the contract states.

Expectation of renewal: If a fixed-term contract is renewed several times, an employee may develop a reasonable expectation of renewal. If the employer then stops renewing the contract without a valid reason, the employee may challenge the decision at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) as an unfair dismissal.

Independent contractors

With the rise of the gig economy, many companies hire independent contractors or freelancers instead of employees.

How it works: Independent contractors are not employees. They operate as service providers and invoice clients for their time or deliverables.

The risk: Because independent contractors are not employees, labour legislation generally does not apply. They are not entitled to paid leave, sick pay, unemployment insurance (UIF) or minimum wage protections. Importantly, they cannot approach the CCMA if a contract is terminated unfairly. Instead, disputes are handled through civil breach-of-contract proceedings.

Sham contracting: Some employers attempt to classify employees as independent contractors to avoid obligations under labour legislation. However, the CCMA considers the true nature of the working relationship rather than the contract title. If a worker uses the employer’s equipment, works set hours and requires permission to take leave, they may be regarded as an employee in law, regardless of what the contract states.

A note on casual workers

The term “casual worker” is commonly used but has limited legal meaning. If a person works more than 24 hours in a month for an employer, they are covered by the BCEA and are entitled to paid annual leave and sick leave on a pro rata basis.

Never sign a contract you have not read. Under Section 29 of the BCEA, employers must provide written particulars of employment. Understanding your employment status from the outset can help prevent disputes later, especially if termination is challenged at the CCMA.

CREDIT TO: IOL

04/03/2026

National Minimum Wage to rise to R30.23 per hour from March

Employment and Labour Minister Nomakhosazana M**h has announced an increase in the statutory National Minimum Wage (NMW) for 2026, raising it from R28.79 to R30.23 for each ordinary hour worked.

“The 1st of March 2026 is the date on which this amendment shall become binding. The R1.44 upward adjustment will benefit all workers, including vulnerable farm workers and domestic workers,” the Minister said in a statement on Tuesday.

Excluded from the NMW increase are workers employed under the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP). Due to EPWP workers being employed under a special dispensation, their adjustment will rise from R15.16 per hour to a minimum wage of R16.62 per hour.

Workers who have concluded learnership agreements contemplated in section 17 of the Skills Development Act, 1998 (Act No. 97 of 1998), are entitled to the allowances contained in Schedule 2. The rates on learnerships will be published on the departmental website.

The National Minimum Wage is South Africa’s labour market statutory requirement. The National Minimum Wage Act came into effect in 2019. In terms of the legislation, employers are obligated to pay workers a minimum amount per hour, and the NMW is subject to an annual review.

Any violations of the Act are subject to fines enforced by the inspectorate. The wage is enforced by the Department of Employment and Labour and the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA).

“The NMW is the floor which an employer is legally obligated to remunerate employees for work done. No employee shall be paid below the National Minimum Wage. It cannot be varied by contract, collective agreement or law; and it is also an unfair labour practice for an employer to unilaterally alter hours of work or other conditions of employment in implementing the NMW,” the department said in a statement on Tuesday.

In terms of the latest NMW adjustments, the rates in the Sectoral Determination for areas and rates, work categories for the Contract Cleaning Sector, as well as those of the Wholesale and Retail Sector, are also made available on the departmental website (www.labour.gov.za).

The NMW Act applies to all workers and their employers except members of the South African National Defence Force, the National Intelligence Agency and the South African Secret Service.

It also does not apply to a volunteer who is a person who performs work for another person and who does not receive, or is not entitled to receive, any remuneration for his or her service.

The National Minimum Wage does not include allowances such as transport, tools, food or accommodation, payments in kind (board or lodging), tips, bonuses and gifts, among others.

CREDIT TO: SA NEWS.GOV.ZA

18/02/2026

President Ramaphosa sends a warning to businesses in South Africa

President Cyril Ramaphosa has issued a warning to employers in South Africa who hire undocumented foreign nationals, making it clear that the government is stepping up enforcement.

He added that businesses and other employers of undocumented foreign nationals would face the full might of the law in South Africa.

Delivering his State of the Nation Address (SONA) on Thursday evening, Ramaphosa said illegal immigration “poses a risk to our security, stability and economic progress”.

He stressed that while the government would act decisively, it would do so within the bounds of the Constitution.

“We will address this problem while ensuring that the fundamental human rights of every person in this country are upheld and protected,” he said.

A focus of the crackdown is employers who flout immigration laws. “The Immigration Act prohibits anyone from employing illegal foreigners who are not documented,” he said.

This warning builds on concerns he raised at the end of 2025, when he signalled that businesses hiring undocumented foreign nationals would face imprisonment or hefty fines under the Immigration Act.

He reiterated that illegal immigration continues to strain public resources and national security, and added that the government is intensifying efforts to repatriate people in the country unlawfully, while promoting legal and skills-based migration.

“To tighten enforcement, we will hire an additional 10,000 labour inspectors this year,” Ramaphosa said.

These inspectors will work alongside police, Home Affairs officials and labour inspectors in coordinated operations targeting violations of immigration and labour laws.

“Employers that hire foreign nationals without the required visas will face the full might of the law,” he warned.

The Department of Employment and Labour has already ramped up inspection blitzes across the country in early 2026.

In February, a large-scale, multi-departmental operation in Newcastle’s textile belt resulted in the arrest of 34 undocumented foreign nationals and two employers.

Crackdown on businesses and undocumented workers:

Inspectors reported that some factory owners attempted to evade the raid by locking themselves inside their premises.

In Rustenburg in January, 11 undocumented foreign nationals and six employers were arrested, with the employers fined R15,000 each for contravening the Immigration Act.

In Durban, a joint task team shut down a business run by an undocumented Ethiopian national who had ignored previous health and safety closure notices.

According to the Department of Employment and Labour, enforcement efforts are yielding results. Last year, 68 employers were arrested and paid admission of guilt fines of R10,000 each, amounting to R680,000 in total fines.

In addition, 322 employees were arrested and processed in line with immigration requirements. The tougher enforcement drive is also helped by policy and legislative changes.

The Employment Services Amendment Bill empowers the Minister to set maximum quotas for foreign nationals in specific sectors such as hospitality, construction and agriculture.

The National Labour Migration Policy, approved in 2025, prioritises South African citizens and permanent residents for job opportunities and restricts foreign employment to specific skills.

The government is also strengthening border management. Ramaphosa said funding would be prioritised to secure borders through improved infrastructure, technology and personnel.

Key border posts will be redeveloped through public-private partnerships, and the Electronic Travel Authorisation system will be extended to all international airports and the busiest land ports of entry.

“We are already using drones and technology to greater effect all along our border,” he said. Legal experts have also urged businesses to take the warning seriously.

CREDIT TO: BUSINESSTECH

10/02/2026

Employers warned to think twice before forcing staff back to the office

Businesses are being warned that pushing staff back into the office without careful, consistent handling can quickly land companies in legal trouble—even if the initial business decision is lawful.

This is the feedback from Employment law associate Ayesha Karjieker at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr (CDH), who said a recent Labour Court ruling has sent a clear warning to employers.

She explained that, as more companies move to end remote work arrangements, how return-to-office decisions are implemented matters just as much as the decision itself.

Karjieker added that while employers are generally within their rights to end remote or hybrid working, the way those decisions are implemented really matters.

In the case she discussed, the court found that what began as a reasonable operational change was mishandled so badly that it crossed the line into constructive dismissal.

The ruling came from the Labour Court matter of Lewis v CCMA. Karjieker said the employee had been working remotely from Cape Town with her employer’s approval.

When the business later lost major clients, the employer decided to cancel remote working with effect from January 2024 and required employees to attend offices in Randburg and KwaZulu-Natal.

According to Karjieker, the court accepted that recalling employees to the office was reasonable and lawful.

However, she said the situation unraveled because of how the employer dealt with Lewis’s medically certified sick leave for anxiety and depression.

“What tipped the situation into constructive dismissal was how the employer handled Miss Lewis’s medically certified sick leave,” Karjieker explained.

She added that mental health-related leave is “particularly risky for employers” if not handled sensitively.

When the employee submitted a medical certificate for anxiety and depression, HR initially confirmed that she would be on paid sick leave. Just four days later, the employer reversed course.

The company withdrew its approval, accused the employee of malingering, and withheld her November salary.

Courts are increasingly scrutinising return-to-office policies

Crucially, the employer did not use its own internal verification mechanisms, such as contacting the doctor or treating the absence as unpaid leave pending an inquiry.

“This illustrates how easily inconsistent policy application can expose a company to legal action,” Karjieker said.

She stressed that employers should not default to “accusatory positions or docking pay prematurely” when employees present medical evidence. Instead, they should follow contractual and policy processes to verify and manage absences.

Looking at the broader implications, Karjieker said return-to-office directives driven by operational pressures can be objectively reasonable, but they must be administered with engagement and consistency.

Poor communication, inconsistent application of policies, or mishandling health, pay, or performance issues can create conditions that employees may experience as intolerable.

When that happens, “what begins as an operational shift can escalate into allegations of constructive dismissal”.

Karjieker added that courts are increasingly scrutinising how employers manage transitions back to the office.

Even where operational decisions are lawful, judges are looking closely at whether employers treat employees fairly, follow their own procedures, and maintain trust.

The judgment does not prevent employers from ending remote work, she said, but “it raises the bar on how things are done”.

Her advice to employers is to communicate operational changes clearly and consistently, follow internal policies, and do not deviate from established procedures without good reason.

Managers may have discretion around pay, performance, and sick leave, but only if their decisions are reasonable, well-communicated, and grounded in company policy.

CREDIT TO: BUSINESSTECH

04/02/2026

Important new laws for anyone employing a domestic worker in South Africa

President Cyril Ramaphosa has commenced new amendments to the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA), impacting employers in South Africa, including households that employ domestic workers.

The COIDA Amendment Act was first signed into law in April 2023, but certain sections were not implemented.

On Friday, 23 January 2026, Ramaphosa gazetted the commencement of several new sections, including a shift in focus from penalising violations under criminal prosecution to administrative fines.

Broadly, the amendments make adjustments to employer compliance requirements, establish administrative penalties, increase enforcement authority, and lengthen injury-claims periods.

This means that violating safety and insurance regulations as an employer will become more costly and subject to stricter penalties, while making it easier for injured workers to return to work.

Notably, the changes also apply to households employing domestic workers in South Africa, who were brought under the COIDA umbrella when the amendment Act was signed into law in 2023.

Law firm Webber Wentzel said employers need to take the new laws seriously and comply with them to ensure workplace safety.

“Immediate action is required to update record-keeping systems, strengthen accident reporting protocols, prepare for inspector engagement, and audit temporary disablement payment processes,” it said.

“Implement rehabilitation frameworks, enhance contractor onboarding procedures, and review transport policies to ensure compliance with the staggered commencement dates.”

The new laws under the COIDA Amendment Act do not take effect all at once, and will commence in sections in February and April 2026.

What it means for employers:

1. Fines Instead of Court Cases

Previously, violating these rules was a criminal offence. Now, instead of waiting for a court hearing, the government will impose a substantial fine immediately.

Failing to report an accident within seven days could result in the employer covering the entire cost of the employee’s compensation.

Additionally, failing to pay an injured worker’s salary (temporary disablement compensation) for the first three months of recovery will result in a penalty equal to the full compensation plus interest.

2. Extended Time for Claims

Workers now have three years to file injury claims, up from just 12 months. Employers must retain accident records for longer, as old injuries can cause problems down the line.

3. Employer Responsibility for Transport Accidents

If an employer arranges transport for staff, such as a shuttle bus, the employer is liable from pickup to drop-off. Even if the driver is at fault for an incident, the employer is still held responsible.

Employers are also required to retain records for five years and report accidents within seven days.

4. Liability for Sub-Contractors

Hiring subcontractors means the subcontractor’s workers are legally considered the employer’s employees unless the subcontractor has paid their insurance premiums.

Employers will then be responsible for paying these fees if the subcontractor fails to do so.

5. Expanded Powers for Inspectors

New inspectors can now:

Enter an employee’s workplace without notice, which, for domestic workers, means an employer’s home or property.

Request to see any documents, which is why it is important to retain all employee documents.

Question the employer under oath.

Issue orders enforceable by the Labour Court.

6. Emphasis on Rehabilitation

The law now emphasises rehabilitation over just compensation. This means that employers must provide support for medical recovery and job reintegration.

According to Chapter VIIA of the COIDA Amendment Act, it requires the Compensation Fund (or individually liable employer/licensee) to provide clinical, vocational, and social rehabilitation.

This could be done by providing medical support for injured employees, such as covering medical costs, offering work concessions, and assisting with reintroducing the employee to the job.

If the employer makes substantial efforts to facilitate employee rehabilitation programs, the employer may be eligible for assessment rebates, which could result in discounted fees.

CREDIT TO: BUSINESSTECH

20/01/2026

The Limits of Trade Union Representation

Lessons from legal precedent: AFGRI Animal Feeds v NUMSA & Others (CCT 188/22)

The Constitutional Court judgment of AFGRI Animal Feeds v. NUMSA & Others (CCT 188/22) has pivotal implications for employers. This landmark ruling, alongside the established precedents in the Lufil Packaging (Isithebe) (A division of Bidvest Paperplus (Pty) Ltd) v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others No. DA8/2018 case reaffirms the principle that trade unions cannot operate outside their defined constitutional scope. This article explores the judgment and its practical implications, providing employers with a strategic understanding of navigating and challenging the locus standi (legal standing) of trade unions.

Key Insights from the Constitutional Court Ruling

Background: The AFGRI case stemmed from an unprotected strike in September 2017, leading to the dismissal of several employees. NUMSA, a trade union constitutionally limited to representing workers in the metal and related industries, attempted to represent the dismissed employees from the animal feed industry in unfair dismissal proceedings. The primary legal question was whether NUMSA had the necessary locus standi to represent these employees.

Judgment Highlights

Strict Adherence to Constitutional Scope: The Court ruled that NUMSA could not represent the employees as they fell outside the union’s constitutional scope. The judgment emphasised that trade unions must strictly adhere to the industries and types of workers defined in their constitutions. Any representation beyond these boundaries is ultra vires and invalid.

Sections 161 and 200 of the LRA: The Court analysed Sections 161 and 200 of the Labour Relations Act (LRA), highlighting that these sections limit a union’s representational rights to its members within its constitutional scope. The inclusion of employees from unrelated industries was deemed invalid, reinforcing the need for unions to comply with their registered scopes.

Practical Implications for Employers

Challenging Trade Union Representation: Employers can leverage this ruling to challenge the locus standi of trade unions attempting to represent employees outside their constitutional scope. When faced with such scenarios, employers should:

Review the Union’s Constitution: Ensure the trade union’s constitution explicitly excludes the sector in which your business operates. This can form the basis of your challenge.

Demand Proof of Membership: Require the union to demonstrate that the employees it seeks to represent are valid members within its constitutional scope.

Invoke Legal Precedents: Refer to the AFGRI and Lufil Packaging cases to substantiate your challenge. These precedents underscore that any action by a union beyond its constitutional powers is unlawful and invalid.

Strategic Benefits

Enhanced Control Over Representation: By challenging improper representation, employers can ensure that only unions with the necessary locus standi represent employees, thereby maintaining orderly labour relations and avoiding unnecessary disputes.

Clarity and Compliance: This ruling provides a clear framework for both employers and unions, ensuring that all parties adhere to the legal boundaries set forth by their constitutions. This can reduce instances of misrepresentation and foster a more transparent labour environment.

Protection Against Overreach: Employers are protected from unions overstepping their bounds, which can lead to invalid claims and unnecessary litigation. This protection helps maintain balanced and fair representation within labour disputes.

The AFGRI judgment significantly reinforces the principle that trade unions must operate within their defined constitutional scopes. For employers, this ruling offers a strategic tool to challenge the locus standi of unions and ensures that labour representation remains within the legal framework. By understanding and applying these legal precedents, employers can better manage the complexities of union representation and safeguard their interests within labour disputes.

CREDIT TO: POLITY & CEOSA

09/12/2025

Dismissed employees must honour restraint clauses, says Labour Appeal Court

Earlier this year, the Labour Court found that a restraint of trade was unenforceable due to the dismissal of the employee. This decision was taken on appeal to the Labour Appeal Court (LAC).

The judgment provides important guidance for employers seeking to enforce restraints following dismissals and clarifies the scope of the Labour Court’s jurisdiction in related matters.

Background

Backsports (Pty) Ltd, a company in the internet communications and technology sector, employed an employee as a senior stream lead for 10 months until his dismissal for misconduct on October 16, 2024. His employment contract contained a restraint of trade clause which, among other things, prohibited him from competing with Backsports or any of its subsidiaries, and from soliciting employees, for a period of 12 months from the termination date of his employment.

Following the employee’s dismissal, he referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration. However, he later withdrew his claim.

Due to concerns that the employee was breaching his restraint of trade undertakings, Backsports approached the Labour Court seeking an order to restrain the employee from soliciting its customers and employees, and from threatening and harassing its employees and directors, or sabotaging its assets.

In the Labour Court

The Labour Court refused to grant the interdict, on the basis that Backsports had failed to prove that the employee had access to confidential information or that he used his trade connections to his, or his new employer’s, advantage and to the prejudice of Backsports; that the duration of the restraint was unreasonable, given the employee’s short service; and that Backsports had effectively waived its right to enforce the restraint when it dismissed the employee for misconduct. It also found that it lacked jurisdiction to grant interdicts in respect of threats and sabotage, as the employment relationship had ended. Backsports appealed to the LAC on an urgent basis.

In the LAC

The LAC found that the Labour Court had misdirected itself in many respects. Firstly, the court a quo erred in finding that dismissal meant that Backsports was precluded from enforcing the restraint. Relying on binding authority in Reeves and Another v Marfield Insurance Brokers CC and Another 1996 (3) SA 766 (A), the LAC held that restraint of trade provisions are generally enforceable regardless of the reason for termination, unless the dismissal was fraudulent or in bad faith – for example, where an employee is hired and fired for the sole purpose of imposing the restraint.

Considering the wording of the clause in the employee’s employment contract, which simply referred to the ‘Termination Date,’ the circumstances that led to termination were irrelevant to the operation of the restraint. The employee did not allege that his dismissal was fraudulent – he pled guilty to the misconduct charges and subsequently abandoned his unfair dismissal dispute. The Labour Court therefore erred in finding that Backsports had waived its right to enforce the restraint by dismissing the employee.

Secondly, the court a quo erred in finding that Backsports had failed to satisfy the requirements for the protection of a proprietary interest and show the reasonableness of the restraint. Backsports had, in fact, succeeded in proving the contract and its breach. In this regard, the employee conceded that his employment was subject to a restraint of trade but denied being in breach, as he claimed that he had no relationship with customers and could not compete with Backsports. However, he also conceded that he had reached out to Backsports’ customers about a business opportunity and urged employees of Backsports to collaborate with him in providing streaming services at a customer’s awards ceremony. By doing so, he breached the restraint agreement directly.

CREDIT TO : IOL

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