Kunene and Another v Lexus Security and Another

The applicants, Ms Nomagugu Kunene and Ms Nompilo Mncube, were dismissed by Lexus Security in February 2022 and referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA. On 13 June 2022 the parties concluded a settlement agreement, later certified as an arbitration award under section 143 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, in terms of which the applicants were to be retrospectively reinstated on the same terms and conditions and to report for duty on 14 June 2022 at a specified address. It was common cause that the applicants reported for duty on 14 June 2022 but refused to sign documentation presented to them, believing it constituted new employment contracts inconsistent with reinstatement. They then left and did not return to work. Lexus Security contended that the documents were merely information‑update forms necessitated by a change of work site after the client barred the applicants from the previous site, and that the applicants requested time to return but thereafter absconded. The employer sent letters calling on them to return and later held a disciplinary hearing in absentia, dismissing them for abscondment. The applicants launched contempt proceedings in the Labour Court alleging non‑compliance with the certified settlement agreement.

The application for contempt of court was dismissed. No finding of contempt was made against either respondent.

The judgment reinforces South African labour‑law principles on the meaning and implementation of reinstatement orders and clarifies that contempt proceedings are confined to enforcing compliance with court orders, not adjudicating the fairness of subsequent dismissals. It underscores the high criminal standard of proof applicable in civil contempt applications and affirms that employees must meaningfully tender services to give effect to reinstatement.