Leader.co.za - Management, Training and Career Advice for Business Leaders





05 MAY 2026
Striking a deal to avoid retrenchment - Part 2

In a previous article, we reported on a Labour Court (LC) ruling that an employer may not use a mutual separation agreement to bypass the retrenchment procedure prescribed by the Labour Relations Act (LRA). The Labour Appeal Court (LAC) has since overturned that decision, reaffirming the long-standing principle that agreements entered into freely and voluntarily should be honoured.

The facts

In WBHO Construction (Pty) Ltd v Masenye and Others (2026), the LAC summarised the facts as follows: Mr Maswangwandile Mdayi (Mdayi) joined the company in April 2018 as a Final Level Grader Operator. In November 2020, Mr Peter Gray (Gray), the company’s Operator Training Manager, approached Mdayi to discuss operational needs and the possibility of transferring him to Postmasburg in the Northern Cape. Mdayi declined, citing family commitments.

At arbitration, Mdayi testified that Gray told him the company intended to retrench him, and that refusal would result in dismissal. Gray, however, testified that Mdayi requested retrenchment due to financial difficulties. On 3 December 2020, the parties signed a “Mutual Separation Agreement,” and Mdayi received severance pay of R181,541.75.

The Labour Court

The LC agreed with the Arbitrator that once operational requirements were raised, the employer was obliged to follow the statutory retrenchment process. The court emphasised that section 189(1) of the LRA is peremptory, requiring employers to invoke the prescribed procedure.

The LC found that the reference to a “retrenchment package” in the agreement confirmed the company’s intention to retrench Mdayi, and that the agreement was used to circumvent section 189. It held that the dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair, ordered Mdayi’s reinstatement with retrospective effect, and awarded costs against the company.

The Labour Appeal Court – Key findings

The LAC disagreed, relying on the principle of contractual sanctity. Quoting the Supreme Court of Appeal in Mohamed’s Leisure Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Southern Sun Hotels Interests (Pty) Ltd (2018), it reaffirmed that freely and voluntarily concluded contracts must be honoured.

Key findings included:
  • Valid agreement: No evidence of coercion was found. The mutual separation agreement was therefore consensual, valid and enforceable. Consequently, the issue of dismissal was not in question.
  • Section 189 not a prerequisite: The LAC held that parties may enter into a mutual separation agreement even when operational requirements are under discussion.
  • Informal discussions acceptable: Even if dismissal fairness were to be considered (which was not relevant in this case), the company had discussed operational requirements with Mdayi and offered relocation as an alternative.

Proceed with caution

Although the LAC’s ruling provides employers with some flexibility, caution is advised. Premature discussions about mutual separation may suggest that termination has already been decided. Case law is replete with examples of retrenchment processes gone wrong.

Practical guidance for employers

When contemplating retrenchment due to genuine operational requirements, employers should:
  • Issue a written notice (invitation to consult) under section 189(3) of the LRA.
  • Engage affected employees in consultation about operational requirements.
  • Explore possible alternatives to dismissal.
  • Only once retrenchment is agreed as inevitable – or if the employee prefers termination -should the terms of separation be discussed. Whether the agreement is labelled a “retrenchment agreement” or “mutual separation agreement” is ultimately immaterial.
Useful resources:

LabourWise
LabourWise provides user-friendly information and documentation about labour relations and labour law in South Africa. Visit our InfoCentre or website.

Share: Facebook
Facebook Twitter
Twitter LinkedIn
LinkedIn Email
Email
Share
Other Print
Print Newsletter
Newsletter