CCMA orders municipality to pay workers' wages fired after one day
The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) recently ordered Gamagara municipality in the Northern Cape to pay six workers 12 months' compensation each after unfairly dismissing them a day after they were employed.
The women were hired as general assistants on 1 July 2025, but were dismissed the following day without a valid reason.
CCMA ruled that each worker receive their full annual salary of more than R160 000 as compensation.
Workers called for interviews in February
The dispute began when the workers were called for interviews in February 2025 in Kathu.
On 18 June 2025 they received calls for them to sign appointment letters. The appointment letters indicated they would commence work on 1 July.
When the six workers arrived at the municipality on 1 July, they were told to wait for their personal protective equipment.
They performed no actual work on their first day.
'At the end of the day, they were told to report the following morning at 7.30am for induction,' according to the Orange Farm Human Rights Advice Centre.
ALSO READ: Here's why employers can't use NDAs to hide harassment in the workplace
Immediate dismissal and positions re-advertised
When the workers arrived on 2 July, they were served with letters withdrawing their appointment letters.
The letters said that an error was made when the shortlisted names were printed, hence the withdrawal.
Worker Itlotlo Tong testified that they did not agree with the assertion that an error was made.
'There was no hearing, they were just terminated with immediate effect,' she said in her testimony.
The municipality's HR manager, Appie Kabelo, served them with both the original appointment and withdrawal letters.
The workers were never told who were the correct names that were supposed to be appointed.
On the same day as the dismissals, the municipality re-advertised the same positions.
The only difference was that the positions were originally advertised as external positions but were now advertised as internal positions.
CCMA default award
The workers contacted the Orange Farm Human Rights Advice Centre for support in bringing their cases to the CCMA.
According to the award, the municipality failed to appear at the hearing despite proper notification.
Before proceeding with the default arbitration, commissioner Amogelang Shadrack Bacwadi contacted municipal manager Lebogang Seetile, who confirmed the CCMA had served the correct email address of the human resource manager.
Seetile told the mediator that he did not know why HR did not attend the proceedings.
ALSO READ: Clicks nurse says she was 'victimised for reporting sexual harassment'
CCMA commissioner's scathing criticism
Bacwadi delivered a harsh criticism of the municipality's actions in his award.
'The reason for withdrawal of the appointment letters as stipulated in the withdrawal letters is a lame excuse, for the mere fact that the same positions were re-advertised as internal positions,' he ruled.
The commissioner noted that the workers were issued appointment letters on 19 June 2025 to start 1 July 2025 and these letters were issued by HR.
During this time, the workers were never informed about any error in terms of their appointment.
'The reason for the withdrawal is therefore strange, improbable and unacceptable,' Bacwadi said.
Impossible error claims rejected
The commissioner rejected the municipality's explanation entirely.
'If it was indeed as claimed, this should have at least been picked up before the applicants could even report for work. The same person who issued the applicants with the appointment letters was the same person who issued them with the withdrawal letters (HR),' he noted.
Bacwadi questioned when the HR manager became aware of the supposed error.
He pointed out that when workers reported for work on 1 July this was never brought to their attention.
Instead, they were told about their personal protective equipment and that they would be informed when to come for their induction.
'It is impossible that that there could have been an error,' the commissioner said.
ALSO READ: Dead man's estate wins R800k from police minister for unlawful arrest and detention
Legal precedent applied
In his legal analysis, Bacwadi referenced the case of Wyeth SA (Pty) Ltd v Manqele, noting that the Labour Appeal Court found that a person becomes an employee the moment an employment contract is signed, even before commencing work.
The commissioner applied section 192 of the Labour Relations Act, which places the burden of proof on employers to show dismissals were fair.
'The applicants established in their evidence they were dismissed. The onus rests with the employer to prove on a balance of probabilities that the dismissal of the applicants was procedurally and substantively fair,' he ruled.
Government institution held to higher standard
Bacwadi emphasised that municipalities must meet higher standards as government institutions.
He noted that municipalities are responsible for providing local services, including employment and must have competent HR personnel.
'Considering that the employer is a government institution that is expected to have competent HR personnel who are well vested in the labour laws of this country and are expected to abide by them, I am of the view that the employer disregarded the labour laws of this country in dismissing the applicants in the manner that they did,' Bacwadi ruled.
CCMA commissioner justifies year's worth wages
The commissioner concluded that maximum compensation was warranted given the circumstances.
He found that the municipality failed to comply with requirements that dismissals should be for fair reasons and follow fair procedures.
'There is no evidence that suggest that they contravened any rule when they were dismissed on 2 July 2025. I therefore find that the dismissal was not appropriate and it is unfair.
Final CCMA award details
'I find that the dismissal of the applicants by the employer (Gamagara municipality) was procedurally and substantively unfair.'
The award orders compensation of 12 months' salary for each worker, though the written award contains an apparent error stating 'six months' salary' in one paragraph while consistently referring to 12 months elsewhere and in the actual compensation amounts.
The municipality must pay each of the workers R162 935 by August 30, 2025.
If the municipality fails to pay by the deadline, interest will accrue at the prescribed rate for judgment debts as set out in the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act of 1975.
Victory during women's month
Patrick Mlaba from the Orange Farm Human Rights Advice Centre celebrated the victory.
'What is important is that at least during Women's Month, we did something to further and honour their celebration and this should be an achievement to all women out there,' Mlaba said.
The Orange Farm Human Rights Advice Centre expressed satisfaction with the outcome, saying it was 'very pleased with this victory of the women workers'.
READ NEXT: Man accused of eating 'smelly' lunch dismissed after taking company to court
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
13 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Non-disclosure agreements can't silence workplace harassment
Graphic: John McCann The use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) for harassment has sparked debate about whether such agreements protect organisations at the expense of complainants' rights. Zelda Perkins, former personal assistant to American former film producer and convicted sex offender Harvey Weinstein, highlighted the plight of silenced employees by establishing the Can't Buy My Silence campaign in the UK to challenge the abuse of NDAs. In response, the UK government announced measures prohibiting employers from using NDAs to silence aggrieved employees. The proposed reforms will prevent employers from including confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements where misconduct is alleged, thereby ensuring individuals are not legally bound to remain silent about their experiences. Several jurisdictions have taken steps to restrict the misuse of NDAs in cases of workplace harassment and discrimination. In the US, various states have implemented anti-harassment laws regulating non-disclosure agreements, complemented by the national Speak Out Act, which bans pre-dispute NDAs. Similarly, Prince Edward Island in Canada enacted the Non-Disclosure Agreements Act in 2022, which prohibits NDAs designed to conceal allegations of harassment or discrimination, promoting transparency and protecting employees' rights to speak openly about abuse. These examples highlight a global trend towards greater accountability and the prioritisation of victims' rights over institutional secrecy. South Africa also regularly deals with cases involving harassment, discrimination and sexual misconduct. The country has not yet enacted legislative reforms to tackle the specific misuse of NDAs but various legal principles and developments do provide protections in this space. NDAs are generally enforceable under South African contract law, provided they are reasonable in scope and duration, and do not violate public policy. The Labour Relations Act (LRA), the Employment Equity Act (EEA) and the Protected Disclosures Act (PDA) offer protection to employees who report harassment or discrimination. Although the EEA does not expressly prohibit NDAs, any agreement that silences victims of harassment or discrimination arguably undermines the purpose of the Act. Section 6 prohibits unfair discrimination and harassment. Victims may not be prevented from reporting such conduct to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), Labour Court or Equity Court. If an NDA prevents such reporting, it could be found to be contrary to public policy and therefore unenforceable. The EEA also imposes a duty on employers to take steps to eliminate harassment. If an NDA is used to cover up harassment, rather than resolve it, the employer could remain liable, regardless of the existence of the agreement. The Code of Good Practice on the Prevention and Elimination of Harassment in the Workplace (Harassment Code), issued under the EEA, aims to eradicate all forms of workplace harassment. It provides a formal mechanism for reporting discrimination and harassment. The code also holds employers vicariously liable for employees' conduct unless they can demonstrate that reasonable steps were taken to prevent and address such behaviour. These provisions arguably prohibit the use of NDAs to silence complainants or avoid accountability. Section 2(3) of the PDA provides that any clause in a contract of employment or other agreement that seeks to exclude or waive rights under the Act is void. This includes agreements preventing the institution or continuation of proceedings under the PDA. This statutory override invalidates any NDA (or other contractual term) that seeks to silence whistleblowers. Notably, the PDA defines 'disclosure' broadly as any disclosure of information about the conduct of an employer or employee, made by a person who reasonably believes that the information shows, among other things, unfair discrimination as contemplated in the EEA or the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act. Under section 8 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, employers are obligated to provide a working environment that is safe and without risk to employees' health. If employers rely on NDAs to conceal harassment, rather than address the underlying issues, they may fail to meet this obligation. As a result, contracts attempting to circumvent these responsibilities may be rendered unenforceable. While victim-initiated settlements may be permissible, they do not negate an employer's broader duty to comply with statutory obligations and actively promote a harassment-free workplace. The LRA protects employees against victimisation and unfair labour practices. In harassment cases, NDAs can be used to prevent or restrict victims from disclosing their experiences. This undermines the right to a safe and fair workplace and may foster impunity. The LRA ensures employees can challenge such practices, thereby safeguarding their rights and supporting a culture of accountability. Sections 187(1)(d) and (h) of the LRA classify dismissals as automatically unfair if they are linked to the enforcement of workplace rights or if silence leads to constructive dismissal. In the context of NDAs, such agreements can pressure employees into remaining silent about harassment or other misconduct. If the terms of an NDA create an intolerable working environment that results in resignation, it can constitute constructive dismissal. While South Africa's legal framework theoretically protects harassment victims from NDA misuse, practical enforcement remains a problem. The existing legislation provides comprehensive protections that can render specific anti-NDA reforms unnecessary. But employers and legal practitioners must understand that NDAs cannot lawfully silence harassment complaints and victims should be aware of their rights under various laws. The focus should be on strengthening enforcement mechanisms rather than creating new laws. Employers must carefully review settlement agreements to ensure compliance with statutory obligations under the relevant legislation. Any clauses that prevent employees from reporting harassment or discrimination to regulatory bodies such as the CCMA, Labour Court or Equity Court, should be avoided, because these are likely to be deemed unenforceable and contrary to public policy. Instead, employers should focus on protecting legitimate business interests, such as confidential commercial information, trade secrets or preventing disparagement, while ensuring that such provisions do not silence the core harassment complaint or restrict employees' legal recourse. Crucially, employers must maintain robust harassment prevention and response procedures, because NDAs cannot absolve them of their statutory duty to provide a safe working environment or eliminate workplace harassment. Dhevarsha Ramjettan is a partner and Kanyiso Kezile a trainee attorney at Webber Wentzel.
The Citizen
14 hours ago
- The Citizen
CCMA orders municipality to pay workers' wages fired after one day
CCMA ruled that each worker receive their full annual salary of more than R160 000 as compensation. The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) recently ordered Gamagara municipality in the Northern Cape to pay six workers 12 months' compensation each after unfairly dismissing them a day after they were employed. The women were hired as general assistants on 1 July 2025, but were dismissed the following day without a valid reason. CCMA ruled that each worker receive their full annual salary of more than R160 000 as compensation. Workers called for interviews in February The dispute began when the workers were called for interviews in February 2025 in Kathu. On 18 June 2025 they received calls for them to sign appointment letters. The appointment letters indicated they would commence work on 1 July. When the six workers arrived at the municipality on 1 July, they were told to wait for their personal protective equipment. They performed no actual work on their first day. 'At the end of the day, they were told to report the following morning at 7.30am for induction,' according to the Orange Farm Human Rights Advice Centre. ALSO READ: Here's why employers can't use NDAs to hide harassment in the workplace Immediate dismissal and positions re-advertised When the workers arrived on 2 July, they were served with letters withdrawing their appointment letters. The letters said that an error was made when the shortlisted names were printed, hence the withdrawal. Worker Itlotlo Tong testified that they did not agree with the assertion that an error was made. 'There was no hearing, they were just terminated with immediate effect,' she said in her testimony. The municipality's HR manager, Appie Kabelo, served them with both the original appointment and withdrawal letters. The workers were never told who were the correct names that were supposed to be appointed. On the same day as the dismissals, the municipality re-advertised the same positions. The only difference was that the positions were originally advertised as external positions but were now advertised as internal positions. CCMA default award The workers contacted the Orange Farm Human Rights Advice Centre for support in bringing their cases to the CCMA. According to the award, the municipality failed to appear at the hearing despite proper notification. Before proceeding with the default arbitration, commissioner Amogelang Shadrack Bacwadi contacted municipal manager Lebogang Seetile, who confirmed the CCMA had served the correct email address of the human resource manager. Seetile told the mediator that he did not know why HR did not attend the proceedings. ALSO READ: Clicks nurse says she was 'victimised for reporting sexual harassment' CCMA commissioner's scathing criticism Bacwadi delivered a harsh criticism of the municipality's actions in his award. 'The reason for withdrawal of the appointment letters as stipulated in the withdrawal letters is a lame excuse, for the mere fact that the same positions were re-advertised as internal positions,' he ruled. The commissioner noted that the workers were issued appointment letters on 19 June 2025 to start 1 July 2025 and these letters were issued by HR. During this time, the workers were never informed about any error in terms of their appointment. 'The reason for the withdrawal is therefore strange, improbable and unacceptable,' Bacwadi said. Impossible error claims rejected The commissioner rejected the municipality's explanation entirely. 'If it was indeed as claimed, this should have at least been picked up before the applicants could even report for work. The same person who issued the applicants with the appointment letters was the same person who issued them with the withdrawal letters (HR),' he noted. Bacwadi questioned when the HR manager became aware of the supposed error. He pointed out that when workers reported for work on 1 July this was never brought to their attention. Instead, they were told about their personal protective equipment and that they would be informed when to come for their induction. 'It is impossible that that there could have been an error,' the commissioner said. ALSO READ: Dead man's estate wins R800k from police minister for unlawful arrest and detention Legal precedent applied In his legal analysis, Bacwadi referenced the case of Wyeth SA (Pty) Ltd v Manqele, noting that the Labour Appeal Court found that a person becomes an employee the moment an employment contract is signed, even before commencing work. The commissioner applied section 192 of the Labour Relations Act, which places the burden of proof on employers to show dismissals were fair. 'The applicants established in their evidence they were dismissed. The onus rests with the employer to prove on a balance of probabilities that the dismissal of the applicants was procedurally and substantively fair,' he ruled. Government institution held to higher standard Bacwadi emphasised that municipalities must meet higher standards as government institutions. He noted that municipalities are responsible for providing local services, including employment and must have competent HR personnel. 'Considering that the employer is a government institution that is expected to have competent HR personnel who are well vested in the labour laws of this country and are expected to abide by them, I am of the view that the employer disregarded the labour laws of this country in dismissing the applicants in the manner that they did,' Bacwadi ruled. CCMA commissioner justifies year's worth wages The commissioner concluded that maximum compensation was warranted given the circumstances. He found that the municipality failed to comply with requirements that dismissals should be for fair reasons and follow fair procedures. 'There is no evidence that suggest that they contravened any rule when they were dismissed on 2 July 2025. I therefore find that the dismissal was not appropriate and it is unfair. Final CCMA award details 'I find that the dismissal of the applicants by the employer (Gamagara municipality) was procedurally and substantively unfair.' The award orders compensation of 12 months' salary for each worker, though the written award contains an apparent error stating 'six months' salary' in one paragraph while consistently referring to 12 months elsewhere and in the actual compensation amounts. The municipality must pay each of the workers R162 935 by August 30, 2025. If the municipality fails to pay by the deadline, interest will accrue at the prescribed rate for judgment debts as set out in the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act of 1975. Victory during women's month Patrick Mlaba from the Orange Farm Human Rights Advice Centre celebrated the victory. 'What is important is that at least during Women's Month, we did something to further and honour their celebration and this should be an achievement to all women out there,' Mlaba said. The Orange Farm Human Rights Advice Centre expressed satisfaction with the outcome, saying it was 'very pleased with this victory of the women workers'. READ NEXT: Man accused of eating 'smelly' lunch dismissed after taking company to court
The Citizen
3 days ago
- The Citizen
Here's why employers can't use NDAs to hide harassment in the workplace
NDAs are generally enforceable under South African contract law, provided they are reasonable in scope and duration, and do not violate public policy. Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) have been criticised for silencing victims of workplace harassment in several jurisdictions. However, unlike most countries, South Africa's legal framework provides protection against workplace harassment. If an NDA is found to be used to cover harassment, the employer could remain liable, regardless of the existence of the agreement. An NDA is a legally binding contract that ensures confidential information shared between parties remains private. This agreement is important for protecting trade secrets, business plans and other confidential data. Dhevarsha Ramjettan, partner at Webber Wentzel law firm, says NDAs are generally enforceable under South African contract law, provided they are reasonable in scope and duration, and do not violate public policy. ALSO READ: Can you get fired for being racist? Here is what employers and employees need to know Acts protecting employees The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA), the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (EEA), and the Protected Disclosures Act 26 of 2000 (PDA) offer protections to employees who report harassment or discrimination. 'While the EEA does not expressly prohibit NDAs, any agreement that silences victims of harassment or discrimination arguably undermines the purpose of the EEA,' says Ramjettan. 'Section 6 of the EEA prohibits unfair discrimination and harassment. Victims may not be prevented from reporting such conduct to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), Labour Court or Equity Court.' Harassment in a workplace She says the Code of Good Practice on the Prevention and Elimination of Harassment in the Workplace (Harassment Code), issued under the EEA, aims to eradicate all forms of workplace harassment. It provides a formal mechanism for reporting discrimination or harassment. 'The Harassment Code also holds employers vicariously liable for employees' conduct unless they can demonstrate that reasonable steps were taken to prevent and address such behaviour. 'These provisions arguably prohibit the use of NDAs to silence complainants or avoid accountability.' ALSO READ: Corporate Mental Health Week: Is your boss a narcissist or a psychopath? Act that overrides NDAs Kanyiso Kezile, trainee attorney at Webber Wentzel, says section 2 of the PDA provides that any clause in a contract of employment or other agreement that seeks to exclude or waive rights under the PDA is void. This includes agreements preventing the institution or continuation of proceedings under the PDA. This statutory override invalidates any NDA (or other contractual term) that seeks to silence whistleblowers. 'Notably, the PDA defines disclosure broadly as any disclosure of information about the conduct of an employer or employee, made by a person who reasonably believes that the information shows, among other things, unfair discrimination as contemplated in the EEA or the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (PEPUDA).' Mental health of employees He adds that under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993 (OHSA), employers are obligated to provide a working environment that is safe and without risk to employees' health, which includes the mental health of employees. 'If employers rely on NDAs to conceal harassment rather than address the underlying issues, they may fail to meet this obligation. As a result, contracts attempting to circumvent these responsibilities may be rendered unenforceable.' It is advisable that employers carefully review settlement agreements to ensure compliance with statutory obligations under the relevant legislation. 'Any clauses that prevent employees from reporting harassment or discrimination to regulatory bodies such as the CCMA, Labour Court, or Equity Court should be avoided, as these are likely to be deemed unenforceable and contrary to public policy.' NOW READ: Can a company to be held liable for employee's suicide?
