Explore publications.

The Labour Court examined enforcing a restraint of trade clause against a senior employee fired after over three decades in Future Packaging and Machinery (Pty) Ltd v Polti. This dispute hinged on whether the court may enforce a national restraint clause for 36 months under section 22 of the Constitution of South Africa, 1996, which protects the right to freely select a trade. Proceedings revealed that the employee worked for a competitor, violating his contract.Based on Magna Alloys, Basson, and Reddy, the court reiterated that limitations are permissible but unenforceable if against public policy and unjust. The court found that the employer had a protectable interest, but it deducted the employee's suspension from the restraint. The court also ruled the restraint appropriate without explanation. The judgement adds to trade jurisprudence's constraint. The court underlines that employees, regardless of status, should honour their contractual commitments but also that the breadth and length of the restraint must be balanced. The judgement balances contractual commitments with constitutional ideals.

This case note critically analyses the Labour Court’s decision in JDJ Diagnostics (Pty) Ltd v Michael Kruger and Others under Case No: D705/2023 delivered on 30 April 2025 (JDJ Diagnostics), which highlights the procedural firmness required in applications to stay the enforcement of arbitration awards under the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA). JDJ Diagnostics’ failure to substantiate its claim of urgency, comply with section 145(8), or justify nonconformity under section 145(3) led to the dismissal of its urgent application. The case illustrates the judiciary’s firm stance against abuse of court processes in the aftermath of the 2014 amendment of the LRA, which shifted toward formalisation in review procedures. Drawing on case law and scholarly publications, the case note explores how the court’s reasoning reflects broader trends in labour dispute resolution, reinforcing the binding nature of arbitration awards and the evidentiary burden on employers seeking to delay enforcement. The judgment confirms that the furnishing of security is no longer discretionary but foundational, marking a continued evolution towards enforcement, fairness, and efficiency in the speedy resolution of disputes in the South African labour law landscape.

In this case note, we disagree with the Labour Appeal Court’s decision in which it found that the dismissal of an employee for testing positive for cannabis consumed in her private home was unfair on account of discrimination. In particular, we hold the view that the finding that the employer could not prove intoxication, was misconceived. We argue that because the employee admitted to being dependent on cannabis, proof of intoxication or impairment was unwarranted. We lean on the literature which evinces that cannabis users suffer from cognitive deficits. We then argue that cognitive decline is no more than an impairment that may affect productivity.