Steenkamp and Others v Edcon Limited

Edcon Limited, employing approximately 40 000 employees, commenced a large-scale retrenchment process from 2013 to 2015 due to operational requirements, retrenching about 3 000 employees. The 1 818 applicants were part of this process. Section 189A of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 applied. No facilitator was appointed, and Edcon issued dismissal notices before the expiry of the mandatory 30-day period under section 189A(8), rendering the process procedurally defective. Instead of utilising the expedited remedies under section 189A(13), the applicants initially challenged the validity of their dismissals based on earlier Labour Appeal Court authority (the De Beers principle). That strategy failed in Steenkamp I, where the Constitutional Court held that non-compliance with section 189A(8) does not render dismissals invalid. Thereafter, the applicants launched an application under section 189A(13) claiming compensation for procedural unfairness, but did so between 10 months and two-and-a-half years out of time, necessitating an application for condonation.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed. The Labour Appeal Court’s refusal of condonation was upheld. No order as to costs was made.

This judgment clarifies the strict, expeditious nature of section 189A procedures in large-scale retrenchments and confirms that section 189A(13) remedies are primarily preventative and corrective, not compensatory. It establishes that compensation under section 189A(13)(d) is not a stand-alone remedy and underscores that reliance on a failed legal strategy does not, without more, justify condonation for substantial delays. The case reinforces discipline in the use of statutory labour dispute mechanisms and limits attempts to resurrect procedurally unfair dismissal claims long after retrenchments have been implemented.