Pexmart CC v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others; Valard Bearings (Pty) Ltd v Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others

Two separate applications were brought on an urgent basis by employers (Pexmart CC and Valard Bearings (Pty) Ltd) seeking to stay the enforcement of arbitration awards pending the outcome of review applications. In Pexmart, an award was issued on 13 April 2023 ordering reinstatement and backpay of R123,552.00. Pexmart filed a review application on 29 May 2023 but did not furnish security as required by section 145 of the LRA nor apply for exemption. The employee certified the award and sought enforcement. In Valard, an award was issued on 29 September 2024 ordering reinstatement and backpay of R53,126.40. Valard filed a review application on 22 November 2024, also without furnishing security. Both applicants only brought urgent applications for exemption from the security provisions (section 145(7) and (8) of the LRA) when sheriffs began enforcing the awards. Both applicants claimed financial difficulties and cash flow constraints as reasons for seeking exemption from furnishing security amounting to 24 months' remuneration.

• Whether the applications were urgent or whether the urgency was self-created
• Whether employers who fail to furnish security in terms of section 145(8) of the LRA at the time of filing review applications should be granted urgent relief when enforcement proceedings commence
• Whether the applicants should be exempted from furnishing security or ordered to furnish lesser security
• The proper interpretation and application of section 145(7) and (8) of the Labour Relations Act

1. The applications are struck from the roll for lack of urgency. 2. There is no order as to costs.

Employers who elect not to furnish security in terms of section 145(8) of the LRA at the time of filing review applications against reinstatement awards, and who fail to timeously apply for exemption from the security provisions, cannot later approach the court on an urgent basis to stay enforcement when employees exercise their lawful right to enforce awards. Such urgency is self-created and does not warrant the court entertaining the matter on an urgent basis. The security required under section 145(8) is 24 months' remuneration only, and does not include any backpay awarded by the arbitrator. A review application does not suspend enforcement of an award unless security is furnished or exemption is granted as per section 145(7) of the LRA.

The Court observed that the decision does not mark the end of the road for applicants, as enforcement of awards may still be stayed provided review applications remain active and pending, and security is furnished in accordance with section 145(8) (24 months' remuneration). The Court commented that reasonable and law-abiding employers would take steps at the time of filing a review, or shortly thereafter, to furnish security, attempt to reach agreement with employees not to proceed with execution, or file exemption applications in the normal course. The Court also noted that exemption applications brought in the normal course, if prosecuted expeditiously, would be determined in a very short period of time, even if opposed. The Court strongly criticized the contemptuous conduct of employers who continue to disregard section 145(7) and (8) with impunity, stating that 'this contemptuous conduct must stop now', particularly 10 years after the promulgation of these security provisions.

This case reinforces the importance of compliance with the security provisions in section 145(7) and (8) of the Labour Relations Act. It sends a strong message that employers cannot ignore statutory security requirements when filing review applications and then expect urgent relief from courts when employees lawfully enforce awards. The judgment emphasizes that urgency cannot be manufactured by employers' own non-compliance with the law. It clarifies the calculation of security required (24 months' remuneration only, excluding backpay). The case contributes to the body of jurisprudence discouraging employers from treating the security provisions with contempt and only seeking exemptions when faced with actual enforcement. It affirms that applications for exemption should be brought timeously in the normal course rather than on an urgent basis only when sheriffs arrive to execute.