CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

National Education Health and Allied Workers Union v University of Cape Town and Others

CitationCCT 2/02; 2003 (3) SA 1 (CC); 2003 (2) BCLR 154 (CC); (2002) 23 ILJ 95 (CC)
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Labour LawConstitutional Law
Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in
Interpretation of Legislation

Facts of the Case

The University of Cape Town (UCT) decided to outsource certain non-core activities (cleaning, gardening, sports ground maintenance) previously performed by NEHAWU members. UCT appointed four contractors to perform these services. UCT held consultations with NEHAWU regarding the outsourcing and possible dismissals, but the dispute remained unresolved. UCT gave notice of termination to approximately 267 workers and offered retrenchment benefits. Workers tendered to continue employment with UCT and then with the contractors. UCT rejected this, instead inviting workers to apply for employment with contractors. Most workers who applied were accepted by contractors, but many did not continue working for long as contractors employed them on less favourable conditions, particularly lower wages. NEHAWU brought an urgent application seeking declaratory relief that the outsourcing constituted a transfer of business as a going concern under section 197 of the LRA, and that employment contracts were automatically transferred to the contractors.

Legal Issues

  • Whether section 197 of the Labour Relations Act provides for automatic transfer of contracts of employment when a business is transferred as a going concern, or whether such transfer requires prior agreement between the transferor and transferee employers
  • The proper interpretation of section 197 of the LRA in light of the constitutional right to fair labour practices under section 23(1) of the Constitution
  • Whether appeals from the Labour Appeal Court lie to the Supreme Court of Appeal or directly to the Constitutional Court
  • The procedure to be followed in appeals from the Labour Appeal Court to the Constitutional Court
  • Whether the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals on the interpretation and application of the LRA
  • The circumstances in which the Constitutional Court will hear appeals from the Labour Appeal Court

Judicial Outcome

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal upheld with costs (including two counsel). LAC order dismissing the appeal set aside. UCT and Supercare ordered to pay costs in the LAC (including two counsel). Case remitted to the Labour Appeal Court to deal with the matter in light of the judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

Upon the transfer of a business as a going concern as contemplated in section 197(1)(a) of the Labour Relations Act, workers are automatically transferred to the new employer by operation of law, and the new employer is substituted in the place of the old employer in respect of all contracts of employment, regardless of whether the transferor and transferee employers agreed that the workforce would be transferred as part of the transaction. Whether a business has been transferred as a going concern is an objective question of fact to be determined having regard to all the circumstances of each transaction, including transfer of assets, whether workers are taken over, whether customers are transferred, and whether the same business is carried on. The absence of agreement between employers regarding transfer of workers does not prevent a finding that a transfer of business as a going concern has occurred. Section 197 has a dual purpose: to protect workers against loss of employment AND to facilitate the transfer of businesses as going concerns, thereby balancing the interests of workers and employers consistent with the constitutional right to fair labour practices under section 23(1) of the Constitution.

Obiter Dicta

The Court made several important obiter observations: (1) The concept of fair labour practice in section 23(1) is incapable of precise definition and must be given content primarily by the legislature and specialist labour tribunals, with the Constitutional Court exercising supervisory oversight; (2) The Constitutional Court will be slow to hear appeals from the LAC unless they raise important issues of principle, given the LAC's specialized expertise and the need for expeditious resolution of labour disputes; (3) Foreign instruments such as the EU Acquired Rights Directive and UK TUPE Regulations, while different in language and context, provide insight for proper interpretation of section 197; (4) Subsequent legislative amendments may be used to clarify the meaning of earlier provisions where Parliament has clearly shown what it meant; (5) Section 23(1) protects both workers and employers (including juristic persons), not workers alone - fairness must be assessed toward both parties; (6) The right to fair labour practices focuses broadly on the employment relationship and its continuation on terms fair to both parties; (7) In interpreting legislation giving effect to constitutional rights, courts must give full effect to legislative purpose, and legislature and courts act in partnership to give life to constitutional rights; (8) The Constitutional Court has jurisdiction over proper interpretation and application of the LRA as it was enacted to give content to section 23 of the Constitution.

Legal Significance

This is a landmark case in South African labour law that definitively establishes the meaning and purpose of section 197 of the LRA. It confirms that workers are automatically transferred with a business when sold as a going concern, providing crucial employment protection. The judgment is significant for: (1) Establishing that proper interpretation of legislation enacted to give effect to constitutional rights is itself a constitutional matter, bringing such interpretive disputes within the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction; (2) Clarifying appellate procedures from the LAC to the Constitutional Court; (3) Recognizing that fair labour practices under section 23(1) of the Constitution protects both workers and employers; (4) Establishing the dual purpose of section 197: worker protection AND facilitation of business transfers; (5) Preventing employers from structuring transactions to avoid section 197's protective provisions; (6) Promoting the constitutional values of social justice and labour peace; (7) Demonstrating the partnership between legislature and courts in giving effect to constitutional rights; (8) Providing guidance on the use of foreign instruments (EU Directive, UK TUPE Regulations) and subsequent legislative amendments in statutory interpretation. The judgment has profound implications for outsourcing, business sales, and employment security in South Africa.

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 76 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cited By 102 Cases

  • AB and Another v Pridwin Preparatory School and Others[2020] ZACC 12
    Cites

    Cited for the consideration of the interests of justice in adjudicating a matter.

  • Abduraghman Thebus and Moegamat Adams v The StateCCT 36/02
    Appeal From

    Appeal from the Supreme Court of Appeal handed down on 30 August 2002, confirming the convictions of both appellants; appeal dismissed.

  • African Christian Democratic Party v The Electoral Commission and OthersCCT 10/06
    Follows

    Used to support that interpretation of legislation gives rise to a constitutional matter within this Court's jurisdiction.

  • Andile William Libazi and Mabhuti Mbayimbayi v The State(424/09) [2010] ZASCA 91 (1 June 2010)
    Applies

    Applied as the Constitutional Court approved the principles of the doctrine of common purpose set out in S v Mgedezi.

  • Aquila Steel (South Africa) (Pty) Limited v Minister of Mineral Resources and Others

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

[2018] ZACC 5
Applies

Applied to recognise that it is permissible to refer to a subsequent statute if it throws light on the meaning of a provision in an earlier statute.

  • Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union and Others v Anglo Gold Ashanti Limited t/a Anglo Gold Ashanti and Others[2021] ZACC 42
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that this Court has jurisdiction over disputes involving the interpretation of provisions of the LRA which give effect to section 23 of…

  • Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union and Others v Royal Bafokeng Platinum Limited and Others[2020] ZACC 1
    Applies

    The Court applies NEHAWU's principles on the content of the right to fair labour practices under section 23(1) of the Constitution and the centrality of…

  • Baloyi v Public Protector and Others[2020] ZACC 27
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the interpretation of the LRA axiomatically raises a constitutional issue.

  • Barkhuizen v Napier(CCT 72/05) [2007] ZACC 5
    Cites

    Cited for the test that consideration of what is in the interests of justice in an application for leave to appeal involves weighing relevant factors,…

  • Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and OthersCCT 27/03
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that matters relating to the interpretation and application of PAJA are constitutional matters.

  • Billy Lesedi Masetlha v The President of the Republic of South Africa and Manala Elias Manzini(CCT 01/07) [2007] ZACC 20
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that interpretation of the Constitution and legislation enacted to give effect to the Constitution give rise to constitutional issues.

  • Chevron Engineering (Pty) Ltd v Nkambule, Joseph and 23 OthersCase Number 68/2002
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that costs do not automatically follow the result in labour matters unless there are special circumstances.

  • Chirwa v Transnet Limited and Others(CCT 78/06) [2007] ZACC 23
    Applies

    Applied for the proposition that the Labour Appeal Court and Labour Court are specialised courts charged with responsibility for developing labour relations…

  • City of Cape Town v South African National Roads Authority Limited & others(20786/2014) [2015] ZASCA 58 (30 March 2015)
    Cites

    Cited to confirm that when developing the common law, s 39(2) requires that courts promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights.

  • City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v RPM Bricks Proprietary Limited(177/2006) [2007] ZASCA 28
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that when developing common law, courts must promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights and must undertake a…

  • City Power (Pty) Ltd v Grinpal Energy Management Services (Pty) Ltd and Others[2015] ZACC 8
    Applies

    This Court applied the principle from NEHAWU that the interpretation and application of the LRA is a constitutional issue and laid down the test for…

  • Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Bosch(394/2013) [2014] ZASCA 171 (19 November 2014)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that explanatory memoranda may be a permissible guide to Parliament's understanding of existing legislation.

  • Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v United Manganese of Kalahari (Pty) Ltd(264/2019) [2020] ZASCA 16
    Cites

    The court cites this case for approval and following of the principle in Patel regarding interpreting legislation in light of later amendments.

  • Condy Mawela & Another v The State(377/2021) [2022] ZASCA 18 (16 February 2022)
    Applies

    Court applied the requirements for sustaining a conviction on the basis of common purpose.

  • Dendy v University of the Witwatersrand(597/05) [2007] ZASCA 30
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that when developing the common law courts are obliged to promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights and for the…

  • Department of Home Affairs v Public Servants Association and Others(CCT 148/16) [2017] ZACC 11
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that leave to appeal requires the matter to raise important issues of principle.

  • Department of Land Affairs and Others v Goedgelegen Tropical Fruits (Pty) LtdCCT 69/06, 2007 (6) SA 199 (CC)
    Applies

    Court applies the principle that the proper construction of a statute enacted to give content to a constitutional right or obligation is itself a…

  • De Reuck v Director of Public Prosecutions (Witwatersrand Local Division) and Others(CCT 5/03) [2003] ZACC 19
    Cites

    Cited for the relevance of whether the grounds of appeal raise a constitutional issue of importance on which a decision by this Court is desirable.

  • Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape v Prins(369/12) [2012] ZASCA 106 (15 June 2012)
    Cites

    Cited in support of the legislative declaration principle.

  • Elmarie Styen v Business Connexion Group LimitedCase No. J1500/20 (unreported, Labour Court)
    Applies

    The Constitutional Court's judgment on the purpose and consequences of a section 197 transfer, explaining that all terms and conditions of contracts of…

  • Equity Aviation Services (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others(CCT 88/07) [2008] ZACC 16
    Applies

    Applied for principles that interpretation of legislation enacted to give effect to the Bill of Rights raises constitutional issues, that security of…

  • eThekwini Municipality v Mounthaven (Pty) Limited[2018] ZACC 43
    Cites

    Cited as example that it is generally not in the interests of justice to grant leave where there are no reasonable prospects of success on the merits.

  • George Sipho Makhubela v The State; Thabo Elekia Matjeke v The State(CCT 216/15) [2017] ZACC 36
    Applies

    This Court applied the principle that, in common purpose, the accused must have intended the criminal result or must have foreseen the possibility of the…

  • Gwababa v S(1290/16) [2016] ZASCA 200 (7 December 2016)
    Cites

    Cited for the doctrine of common purpose applied in this matter.

  • Head of Department: Mpumalanga Department of Education and Another v Hoërskool Ermelo and Another(CCT 40/09) [2009] ZACC 32
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that a constitutional issue is raised when a court must interpret and apply legislation enacted to give effect to a constitutional…

  • Hendricks v The State(415/09) [2010] ZASCA 55 (31 March 2010)
    Applies

    The court applied the principles from S v Thebus regarding the right to silence, distinguishing between impermissible inferences of guilt from pre-trial…

  • Hlalanathi Ngwadla v The StateNgwadla v State (936/2020) [2026] ZASCA 77 (25 May 2026)
    Cites

    cited for the principle concerning inference drawing from circumstantial evidence in murder cases

  • Horn and Others v LA Health Medical Scheme and Another[2015] ZACC 13
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that interpretation and application of the LRA is a constitutional issue.

  • International Trade Administration Commission v SCAW South Africa (Pty) Ltd (with Bridon International Limited intervening)(CCT 59/09) [2010] ZACC 6
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the construction of provisions of operative domestic legislation consistent with the Constitution raises a constitutional issue.

  • Jabulane Alpheus Tshabalala v The State; Annanius Ntuli v The State[2019] ZACC 48
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that common purpose is rationally connected to the legitimate objective of limiting and controlling joint criminal enterprise and…

  • J E Mahlangu and Another v Minister of Police[2021] ZACC 10
    Applies

    This case is cited for the test on when it is in the interests of justice for this Court to grant leave to appeal.

  • Khazamula Samuel Miyambu and Others v Steve Tshwete Local Municipality and AnotherCase no: 2025-002049
    Cites

    Court cites this Constitutional Court case for the principle that the effect of section 197 is that the new employer takes over the employees and all rights…

  • King N.O. and Others v De Jager and Others[2021] ZACC 4
    Cites

    This Court held that the normative influence of the Constitution must be felt throughout the common law.

  • KwaZulu-Natal Joint Liaison Committee v Member of the Executive Council, Department of Education, KwaZulu-Natal and Others[2013] ZACC 10
    Cites

    Cited by Nkabinde J for principles governing leave to appeal and that a variety of factors must be considered including prospects of success and public…

  • Lilian Dudley v The City of Cape TownCase CCT 5/04
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that interpretation and application of the EEA ordinarily raises a constitutional matter.

  • Lilian Dudley v The City of Cape Town and Ivan TomsCCT 5/04
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that interpretation and application of the Employment Equity Act ordinarily raises a constitutional matter.

  • Lucky Thomas Khumalo v The State(723/2020) [2022] ZASCA 39 (04 April 2022)
    Cites

    This case is cited for the principle that if an aspect of a witness' evidence is left unchallenged in cross examination, the unchallenged evidence may be…

  • Lufuno Mphaphuli & Associates (Pty) Ltd v Andrews and Another; Lufuno Mphaphuli & Associates (Pty) Ltd v Bopanang Construction CC(CCT 97/07) [2009] ZACC 6
    Cites

    Cited on interests of justice test for granting leave to appeal.

  • Mahlalela v The State(396/16) [2016] ZASCA 181 (28 November 2016)
    Cites

    Cited for the duty to evaluate evidence against an accused separately and individually to determine whether all elements of common purpose and each offence…

  • Maila v The State
    Applies

    The Court applied Thebus principles on alibi defences, including consequences of late disclosure and that courts cannot attach much weight to an alibi raised…

  • Malele v The State(723/2016) [2017] ZASCA 173 (1 December 2017)
    Cites

    The court cites this case as confirming the common purpose prerequisites established in Mgedezi.

  • Maroveke v Talane N.O. and Others[2021] ZACC 20
    Applies

    The Constitutional Court applied NEHAWU to determine whether it is in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal, requiring consideration of prospects…

  • Member of the Executive Council for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, KwaZulu-Natal v Nkandla Local Municipality and Others[2021] ZACC 46
    Cites

    Cited for the test of prospects of success for leave to appeal applications.

  • Member of the Executive Council for Health, Western Cape v A R Coetzee and 49 Others(CCT 137/19) [2020] ZACC 3
    Follows

    Relied on by the applicant and applied by this Court to establish that proper interpretation and application of the LRA raises a constitutional matter and…

  • Merifon (Pty) Limited v Greater Letaba Municipality and Another[2022] ZACC 25
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that MFMA provisions are peremptory and must be complied with.

  • Michael Hermann Armbruster and Another v The Minister of Finance and Others(CCT 59/06) [2007] ZACC 17
    Cites

    Cited in support of the test for granting leave to appeal.

  • Minister of Health and Professor D McIntyre NO v New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd and OthersCCT 59/04; 2005 (2) SA 530 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited for prior occasion where question whether litigant can rely on Constitution without challenging statute was raised

  • MM Mphela and 217 Others v Haakdoornbult Boerdery CC and 6 Others(CCT 42/07) [2008] ZACC 5
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that the interpretation of legislation giving effect to a constitutional provision is a constitutional issue.

  • Mokoele v The StateMokoele v The State (776/2018) [2026] ZASCA 57 (22 April 2026)
    Cites

    Cited in support of the principles regarding alibi defences.

  • Motsitsi v The State(086/2023) [2026] ZASCA 44 (02 April 2026)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that common purpose requires participation with the requisite blameworthy state of mind and explaining the mens rea requirements for…

  • Mpho Robinson Tshiki v The State(358/2019) [2020] ZASCA 92 (18 August 2020)
    Applies

    Applied to explain that a failure to raise an alibi timeously is not a neutral factor and can legitimately be taken into account in evaluating the evidence as…

  • Mpumelelo Obed Mbatha v University of Zululand(CCT 45/13) [2013] ZACC 43
    Cites

    Used to explain that proper interpretation and application of legislation enacted to give effect to constitutional rights will raise constitutional matter, and…

  • Muchihwande Forbes Sithole v The StateHH 260/18, CA 428/16, REF CRB NO. BTB 508/16
    Cites

    Cited for setting out the two categories of liability requirements of a joint criminal enterprise under the common law principles of common purpose.

  • Nabolisa v The Regional Court Magistrate and Another(568/2022) [2023] ZASCA 07 (19 January 2024)
    Applies

    Applied in footnote to affirm that the exercise of the right to remain silent has consequences for trial proceedings.

  • National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa and Others v Aveng Trident Steel (a division of Aveng Africa (Pty) Ltd) and Another[2020] ZACC 23
    Applies

    Applied for the proposition that interpretation of legislation enacted to give effect to the Bill of Rights raises constitutional issues.

  • Explore More Cases

    More Labour Law cases

    • (1) Isador Husaiwevhu (2) Walter Mutowo (3) Fungai Zinyama v (1) UZ-UCSF Collaborative Research Programme (2) Sheriff of Zimbabwe N.O (3) High Court Registrar N.OJudgment No. SC 86/25, Civil Appeal No. SC 302/25
    • Aaron Mwenje v Intermarket Building SocietySC. 80/05 (Civil Appeal No. 358/04)
    • Aaron Zhomwe v BHP Minerals CompanyS.C. 3/2001 (Civil Appeal No. 25/2000)
    • Abdool Samad Cassim v Richards Bay MineralsD 81/2021
    • Abishai Bonda and Daniel Mahoza v JR Goddard Contracting (Pvt) LtdHB 199/22, HC 1411/20
    • ACCA Zimbabwe v Cuthbert MunhupedziHH 232-21, HC 3522/20
    • Adcorp Workforce Solutions (Pty) Ltd v CCMA and OthersCase no: D 1280/19
    • Adlecraft Investments (Private) Limited v Cassandra Myburgh and Colins BakerHH 538-21, HC 4465/21

    More South Africa cases

    • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
    • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
    • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
    • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
    • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another
    2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97