De Almeida v Reeflords Property Development (Pty) Ltd

The applicant, Ms Lauren De Almeida, was employed by Reeflords Property Development (Pty) Ltd from 2014 in a senior role within the sales department. Over time, tensions arose between her and another senior manager, Ms Cheng, particularly regarding reporting lines, job titles, and departmental hierarchy. De Almeida fell pregnant in 2015 and went on maternity leave during 2016. Upon her return, the employer restructured the sales department, appointed Cheng as the sole head of department, and removed De Almeida from her previous operational management functions. She was offered an alternative position in marketing, which she contended she lacked the skills and training to perform. De Almeida lodged a grievance alleging demotion and unfair treatment linked to her return from maternity leave. Following an unresolved grievance, the employer initiated a retrenchment process under section 189 of the Labour Relations Act, citing redundancy of her position. Although discussions took place and some oral agreement was reached regarding alternative employment conditions, the written offer did not reflect all agreed terms. De Almeida rejected the written offer and was retrenched.

Absolution from the instance was granted in respect of the automatically unfair dismissal claim. The retrenchment was found to be substantively and procedurally unfair under section 189 of the Labour Relations Act.

The case illustrates the distinction between automatically unfair dismissal linked to pregnancy and retrenchment for operational requirements. It emphasises the importance of genuine, good-faith consultation under section 189 of the LRA and clarifies that employers must accurately reflect agreed alternatives to retrenchment in written offers. Failure to do so can render an otherwise legitimate retrenchment unfair.