Steenkamp and Others v Edcon Limited

Edcon Limited undertook large-scale retrenchments for operational requirements affecting thousands of employees. In terms of sections 189 and 189A of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA), Edcon issued notices inviting consultation but, in a number of instances, gave notices of termination before the expiry of the minimum statutory consultation periods prescribed by section 189A(7) and (8). Affected employees, supported by NUMSA, challenged the dismissals solely on the basis that the notices of termination were premature and therefore invalid in law. They did not allege substantive or procedural unfairness, did not pursue remedies provided in section 189A(13), and accepted severance packages.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed. The decision of the Labour Appeal Court was upheld. No order as to costs was made.

This judgment clarified a long-standing conflict in Labour Appeal Court jurisprudence and definitively established that dismissals effected in breach of section 189A time periods are not invalid. It confirms the primacy and exclusivity of the LRA’s remedial scheme in dismissal disputes and limits the use of common-law legality challenges in labour law. The case is central to South African labour jurisprudence on large-scale retrenchments and procedural fairness.