Buthelezi and Others v Mabotwane Security Services

The applicants were employed as security guards by the respondent, Mabotwane Security Services, and were deployed at Charlotte Maxeke Hospital. On or about 26–28 January 2022, they were informed that the client no longer wanted them at the site, allegedly due to concerns about union membership and potential labour unrest. They were told to choose alternative sites outside Gauteng, but no real alternatives were available. They were then issued with termination letters and dismissed on 28 January 2022 for purported operational requirements. No consultation process was held, no joint consensus-seeking process took place, and the notices of retrenchment did not comply with section 189(3) of the Labour Relations Act. The matter proceeded as a default judgment due to the respondent’s absence.

The court declared the dismissals of the applicants on 28 January 2022 to be substantively and procedurally unfair and ordered the respondent to pay each applicant compensation equivalent to five months’ remuneration calculated at the rate of pay at the time of dismissal.

The case reinforces the strict obligations placed on employers under section 189 of the Labour Relations Act to consult meaningfully and disclose relevant information before retrenching employees. It affirms that dismissals arising from a client’s demand or loss of a contract remain dismissals for operational requirements and must comply fully with statutory procedures. The judgment underscores that contradictory or pretextual reasons for retrenchment will render dismissals substantively unfair.