The applicants were dismissed in mid-2008 in relation to a strike. On 24 July 2013, the Labour Court (per Gush J) found the dismissals to be substantively and procedurally unfair and ordered the respondent employer to reinstate the applicants retrospectively to the date of dismissal, with employees to report for duty within 14 days. The respondent unsuccessfully appealed this decision through various courts until the Constitutional Court dismissed the application on 12 November 2014, and the Supreme Court of Appeal rejected a parallel petition on 18 November 2014. On 29 July 2013, approximately 10 employees accompanied by a SATAWU union official, Edgar Mbina, tendered their services at the respondent's premises. Louis Maritz, the respondent's manager, refused the tender stating the company was unaware of the court judgment and advised them to consult the respondent's lawyers. The applicants then brought a claim for arrear wages (backpay) under section 77(3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act instead of contempt proceedings for failure to reinstate.
The application was dismissed with no order as to costs. While the court found that the applicants had validly tendered their services and were morally entitled to backpay, they had used the wrong legal process (a contractual claim under section 77(3) of the BCEA rather than contempt proceedings) and therefore could not succeed.
A reinstatement order is an order ad factum praestandum (to perform an act) rather than an order to pay money, and therefore constitutes a judgment debt that must be enforced through contempt proceedings. Backpay is only contractually owing upon the full restoration of the employment contract, which requires both the employee's tender of services and the employer's acceptance of those services. A reinstatement order does not itself reinstate the contract of employment; it creates reciprocal obligations for the employee to present themselves for work and for the employer to accept them back. The proper remedy for an employer's failure to reinstate following a court order is contempt proceedings, not a contractual claim for arrear wages under section 77(3) of the BCEA. Only after the employer has actually reinstated the dismissed employees does backpay become a contractual debt that is due and payable.
The court made several non-binding observations: (1) A union official may validly tender services on behalf of all union members entitled to reinstatement, not just those physically present, based on agency law and compelling policy reasons given the costs and difficulties workers face in traveling to workplaces; (2) No new tender of services is required after an unsuccessful appeal that revives the enforceability of the original reinstatement order, as the parties are returned to the position they were in before the appeal was noted; (3) This is particularly important for deceased employees who died after the original order but before the appeal was exhausted - their estates would be entitled to backpay without being able to re-tender services; (4) The court expressed reluctance in its finding, noting that while an abstract point of law favored the respondent, "overall morality, I fear, does not." This reflects the court's recognition that the applicants were substantively entitled to relief but were denied it on procedural grounds.
This case clarifies and applies the Constitutional Court's principles from Hendor regarding the nature of reinstatement orders and the appropriate remedies for non-compliance. It establishes important procedural requirements for enforcing reinstatement orders in South African labour law, emphasizing that employees must use contempt proceedings rather than contractual claims when employers fail to reinstate. The case also provides guidance on tender of services, including that a union official may validly tender services on behalf of members, and that a fresh tender is not required after unsuccessful appeals that merely revive the original order. The judgment highlights a tension between legal technicality and substantive justice, where employees who were clearly entitled to relief were denied it due to selecting the wrong procedural remedy.