Johannes Wynand Louw Hofmeyr v Andre Saaiman t/a SA Endovascular Group Practice

The applicant, Dr Johannes Hofmeyr, a cardiologist, was employed by the respondent, Dr Andre Saaiman, in his medical practice from around June 2013 until 2 May 2017. The employment relationship initially involved mentorship and an expectation that Dr Hofmeyr might eventually take over the practice. Over time, the relationship deteriorated due to professional differences and uncertainty about future prospects. In April and May 2017, Dr Saaiman demanded that Dr Hofmeyr sign a restraint of trade agreement preventing him from practising in certain competing hospitals or areas. Dr Hofmeyr refused to sign the restraint. As a result, his employment was terminated with immediate effect on 2 May 2017. Dr Saaiman later offered reinstatement with back pay, which Dr Hofmeyr declined. Dr Hofmeyr referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA, and thereafter approached the Labour Court alleging that his dismissal was automatically unfair in terms of section 187(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA).

The point in limine was dismissed. The applicant’s claim that his dismissal was automatically unfair in terms of section 187(1)(c) of the LRA was dismissed on the basis that the section does not apply to individual employees.

This judgment confirms and reinforces the Labour Court’s interpretation that section 187(1)(c) of the LRA, following its 2014 amendment, is confined to collective bargaining contexts and cannot be relied upon by individual employees. It clarifies the scope of automatically unfair dismissals and draws a clear distinction between individual unfair dismissal claims and those implicating collective labour rights, thereby limiting access to enhanced remedies under section 187(1)(c).