You are currently viewing our desktop site, do you want to download our app instead?
Moneyweb Android App Moneyweb iOS App Moneyweb Mobile Web App

NEW SENS search and JSE share prices

More about the app

Court ruling on SAA retrenchments ‘wrong’, say BRPs

Employees at risk of fair dismissal for operational reasons before business rescue effectively given immunisation against dismissal for any reason.
The rescue practitioners argue that the labour court has gone beyond interpreting the legislation, and has effectively amended it. Image: Shutterstock

The court battle between trade unions and the business rescue practitioners (BRPs) tasked with turning South African Airways (SAA) around could have serious implications for business rescue proceedings across the country. This after the labour court ruled that employees could not be laid off in the absence of a rescue plan.

The ruling is, however, being challenged.

In their submission for leave to appeal the court’s ruling, SAA rescue practitioners Les Matuson and Siviwe Dongwana argue that the court’s interpretation of Section 136 of the Companies Act related to the responsibilities that BRPs have to employees during a business rescue is wrong.

The pair contend that the court in fact provided employees with more rights than is legally permissible, and in turn undermined the rights of the employer, in this case SAA.

“Prior to business rescue, the employees of a company were at risk of a fair dismissal for operational requirements,” say Matuson and Dongwana in court papers submitted to the Labour Appeals Court dated May 15. “Under the interpretation of Section 136 provided by the judgment, the employees are better off than before business rescue commenced.”

In arguing for the court to grant them leave to appeal, they further state that the matter is not only significant to the parties, but also the insolvency and rescue community at large “especially in these times of anticipated economic hardship.

Temporary protection, damaging consequences

The pair state that preventing a financially-distressed company from reorganising the business pending the finalisation of a rescue plan will have “unintended deleterious consequences for business rescue which are disproportionate to the temporary protection of employees.”

In his ruling in the case brought by the National Union of Metalworkers of SA (Numsa) and the SA Cabin Crew Association (Sacca), Judge André van Niekerk found that the BRPs issued retrenchment notices to employees (via their unions) prematurely and without completing a business rescue plan first. Van Niekerk ruled that the notices were “procedurally unfair” under Section 136 and should be withdrawn. 

Read: South African Airways rescue team to appeal court ruling on layoffs

Section 136 provides that during business rescue proceedings employees continue to be employed under the same contractual terms of employment. The subsection states that retrenchments “contemplated in the company’s business rescue proceedings plan is subject to Section 189 and 189A of the Labour Relations Act (LRA)” and other labour legislation. 

The BRPs say the section needs to be looked at in the context of Chapter 6 of the Companies Act dealing with business rescue. 

Under business rescue, administrators are given the rights of a company’s board and management, and are granted a moratorium against creditors and parties who have a legal claim against the company.

In other words: “It affords that supervisor a breathing space to take hold of the company’s business, investigate it and propose to creditors, shareholders and other stakeholders a way forward,” state the BRPs.

“It seeks to take the burden of usual legal obligations away from the BRP during this process, permitting the change, suspension or even cancellation of those obligations.”

Section 136 is about preserving ‘existing rights’

Given the special powers that BRPs have under rescue proceedings with regard to contractual obligations, Matuson and Dongwana say Section 136 is aimed at “preserving” the existing rights of employees that are stipulated in the employment contracts in line with the LRA.

“There is no sign at all that it was intended to go further and provide employees with additional rights and protections, least of all an immunisation against dismissal,” they state.

By way of example, Matuson and Dongwana ask that, in the event that BRPs discover that one or more people are stealing from the company, would they not be allowed to dismiss these employees for misconduct?

Or, should the company incur significant losses because a ‘key’ employee is incapacitated, are the BRPs prohibited from dismissing (fairly) them for incapacity?

“There is no good reason why the existence of business rescue should confer immunity on those who misconduct themselves or who are otherwise incapacitated from complying with their contracts of employment,” they say.

What employees are entitled to, however, is protection from unfair dismissal.

At the same time, the BRP, as the company’s manager, also has the right to dismiss workers for operational reasons, as provided for by the LRA. 

“Section 136 has not added an additional burden on the employer, nor has it granted employees an additional right over and above those conferred by the contracts of employment and labour legislation,” argue the BRPs.

“It is submitted that the court has gone beyond the usual power to interpret legislation, and effectively amended it, thereby usurping the power and function of the legislature.”

Read: SAA spent R9.9bn since filing for bankruptcy protection

Please consider contributing as little as R20 in appreciation of our quality independent financial journalism.



Sort by:
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Top voted

You must be signed in to comment.


There’s only one test for this whole SAA debacle.

Anyone who wants to rescue it,or start another airline, must do with his own money and /or pension plan.

Pravin? The unions? Thought not.

Same old socialist refrain. Let’s blow other people’s money.

Except, in the mind of a socialist, what’s yours is his too. Remember that all private property is theft, to a socialist.

Certainly, the BRPs make a very good point.
This – with a deep depression looming – is NO time to strengthen the hands of the militant unions like Cabin Crew (basicly coffee trolley pushers) and Numsa.

SAA is Africa’s proof to the world that given enough political pressure even a brick can fly.

Another Gupta-type ‘How to Steal a Country’ movie should be made. It could be called ‘

I fervantly hope this is Mr Gordhan’s final communistic fling. The BRP Act clearly gives him no legal right to interfere in the process, but he persists in running a parallel “rescue” process.
This is another example where poor old Cyril fails to provide obviously necessary leadership.

i agree as the court only took the 4700 SAA employees into consideration and not the rest of a whole nation out of whose Taxes the funding of a loss making SOE comes. totally wrong decision.

I have lost all respect for Gordhan. He is essentially a communist / socialist who does not understand economics.

There is only one cabinet member who knows what he is doing, Tito Mboweni. The others are just oxygen thieves.

This obsession with SOEs will be the downfall of our country.

The quicker that Herman Mashaba gets his party in gear the better. Government by corrupt consensus does not work.

What part of – there is no money left – do they not understand?

A pharmacist and communist trying to run SAA and 70 odd other SOEs !

A communist with a BA running The Dept of Trade and industry ! Patel was minister of economic development from 09 to 19 – during this time the economy collapsed!

Boggles the mind!

Everyone is trying to flog the last drop of blood from that dead stone horse.

End of comments.





Follow us: