One of the most impactful South African employment law decisions in recent times is the Constitutional Court's judgment in Motor Industry Staff Association and Another v Great South Autobody CC t/a Great South Panelbeaters and Solidarity obo Strydom and Others v SITA (2024), which dealt with the dismissal of employees who continued working beyond their agreed retirement ages. Why should employers care? The consolidated cases of Motor Industry Staff Association and Another v Great South Autobody CC t/a Great South Panelbeaters and Solidarity obo Strydom and Others v State Information Technology Agency SOC Limited—decided by the Constitutional Court of South Africa in December 2024—dealt with a highly contentious and critical aspect of South African employment law: age-based dismissals and retirement. Specifically, the Court had to interpret Section 187(1)(f) and Section 187(2)(b) of the Labour Relations Act (LRA). Under South African law, dismissing an employee based on age is considered an automatically unfair dismissal (unfair discrimination). However, Section 187(2)(b) provides an exception: a dismissal based on age is fair if the employee has reached the normal or agreed retirement age for persons in that capacity. The core legal question across both cases was: Can an employer still fairly dismiss an employee based on age if they allowed the employee to continue working past their agreed or normal retirement age? The Background of the Disputes The MISA / Landman Matter: An employee (Mr. Landman) had an agreed retirement age of 60 in his contract. He turned 60 and continued working for another nine months without any discussion about retirement. The employer then suddenly issued a termination notice based on him having reached his retirement age. The Solidarity / SITA Matter: Six employees surpassed their normal retirement age of 60 but were permitted to continue working. SITA's policies allowed employees to continue working until age 67 with the employer’s consent. SITA later dismissed them based on their age, but the union argued that SITA had implicitly or tacitly consented to a new retirement age of 67. The Outcome and the Three Mutually Exclusive Interpretations Because the Constitutional Court split and failed to reach a single majority consensus on how the statutory text should be applied, the judgment produced three distinct, split interpretations. This has created immense legal uncertainty for employers in South Africa: The Strict Approach (Zondo CJ) The Ruling: A dismissal based on age is only fair if it occurs on the exact date (or the last day of the specific month) the employee reaches their normal or agreed retirement age. The Logic: Former Chief Justice Zondo argued that allowing employers an indefinite right to dismiss an employee anytime after retirement age leaves older workers incredibly vulnerable and open to abuse (such as an employer using age to mask an unfair performance or retrenchment dismissal). Dismissing them even a few months later is automatically unfair. Application to the cases: Under this logic, both Landman and the SITA employees were unfairly dismissed. The Reasonable Period / Election Approach (Van Zyl AJ) The Ruling: An employer has a contractual "election" (a choice) to make when an employee hits retirement age. To be fair, the employer must exercise this right to dismiss within a reasonable period after the retirement date. The Logic: If the employer waits too long without saying anything, they are deemed to have tacitly consented to the continuation of employment, waiving their immediate right to dismiss based on age. The Flexible / Traditional Approach (Rogers J) The Ruling: An employer retains the right to dismiss an employee based on age at any time after they have reached the agreed or normal retirement age. The Logic: This interpretation aligned with historical South African case law (the Waco precedent). It views the retirement age as a permanent threshold—once crossed, the employer holds a continuous right to terminate the relationship, provided they give reasonable notice. How the Specific Appeals Concluded Despite the lack of an overarching majority reasoning, the judges aligned on the physical outcomes of the specific cases based on their unique facts: The MISA (Landman) appeal was dismissed (his dismissal was ultimately held as fair under the facts by a majority of votes across the split judgments). The Solidarity (SITA) appeal was upheld, and the employees were awarded 24 months’ remuneration in compensation. The court found that because SITA's policies actively contemplated extension up to age 67, letting them work past 60 constituted a tacit agreement to a new retirement age. Dismissing them before they hit 67 was therefore automatically unfair discrimination. The practical employer risk Where an employee remains employed beyond retirement age: The employment relationship may continue on terms that create additional rights and expectations. Delayed retirement decisions may expose employers to claims of unfair discrimination or automatically unfair dismissal. Inconsistent practices across employees can create significant legal vulnerability. Employers who do not actively manage retirement processes may find themselves litigating issues that could have been avoided through proper workforce planning. Key Takeaway for Modern Workplace Culture This ruling serves as a warning for South African employers. If an employee is nearing retirement age and the business wishes to retain them, they can no longer simply "let things slide" on a handshake. To protect both the dignity of the older worker and the legal safety of the organization, employers must formalize post-retirement employment via clear, written, fixed-term contracts rather than relying on open-ended arrangements. My take-away for employers and HR The real lesson is not about retirement age itself. It is about consistency, planning and documentation. Organisations should: Clearly define normal and agreed retirement ages; Monitor employees approaching retirement age; Engage employees well before retirement; Document any agreement to continue employment beyond retirement; Ensure a consistent approach across the workforce. Too often retirement is treated as an administrative issue. The Constitutional Court has reminded us that it is actually a strategic employment law risk that requires active management. Final thought Many employment law disputes arise not because employers make the wrong decision, but because they make the decision too late. Retirement age is one such example. The question HR leaders should be asking is: "Do we have a retirement management process, or are we simply hoping the issue resolves itself?" This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance on protected disclosures, employment practices, or compliance obligations, consult a qualified labour law practitioner. © 2026 Global Business Solutions (GBS). All rights reserved. If you’re looking for a practical way to build AI capability this year, the AI Compass Capacitation Programme offers a structured 6-month learning journey for professionals across business functions. Running from July 2026 to January 2027, the programme covers AI foundations, prompting, practical AI tools, Microsoft Copilot, process thinking, automation, bot building, and AI law and governance, with a strong focus on real-world application. Learn more about Intake 2 and how to register here. View our upcoming events: Upcoming Events and Qualifications, like AI Compass Intake 2, Disciplinary Enquiry & Arbitration Master Class (Live: PE/Gq, CT & Virtual), Parental Leave After van Wyk (Pop-Up) and EE Reporting 2026: The Year Targets are Tested. *All workshops are offered as customised in-house training that can be presented virtually or on-site.

What does it mean to be AI-ready? Many organisations believe they are preparing for artificial intelligence because employees have access to tools such as ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, or Gemini. In reality, AI readiness goes much further than software access. An AI-ready organisation has the people, governance, processes, and skills needed to use AI safely, responsibly, and productively. It understands where AI creates value, where risks exist, and how to embed AI into everyday work without compromising compliance or quality. This is becoming an increasingly important competitive advantage as AI adoption accelerates across every business function. Why are many AI initiatives failing? Despite growing investment in AI, many organisations struggle to move beyond experimentation. Common reasons include: Employees receive access to AI tools without training. AI is used inconsistently across teams. There are no governance or usage policies. Staff are unsure what can and cannot be automated. AI projects focus on technology instead of business outcomes. Organisations lack internal AI champions. Successful AI adoption depends far more on capability than technology. What are the characteristics of an AI-ready organisation? AI-ready organisations generally have several capabilities in place. Workforce AI literacy Employees understand how AI works, its limitations, and how to use it effectively within their roles. Responsible AI governance Policies exist around privacy, security, intellectual property, compliance, and ethical AI use. Process thinking Rather than automating isolated tasks, organisations identify complete workflows that can be redesigned using AI. Leadership commitment Leaders understand how AI supports business strategy and actively encourage responsible experimentation. Continuous learning AI changes rapidly. Successful organisations create learning environments that allow employees to continually build new skills. How can organisations become AI-ready? A practical roadmap often includes five stages: Step 1: Assess current capability Understand existing AI knowledge, digital maturity, and process readiness across departments. Step 2: Build foundational AI skills Develop practical knowledge around prompting, AI tools, responsible use, and workflow thinking. Step 3: Identify automation opportunities Map repetitive processes that can benefit from AI or workflow automation. Step 4: Establish governance Develop AI policies covering privacy, cybersecurity, compliance, ethical use, and quality assurance. Step 5: Scale practical implementation Move from isolated experiments to structured organisational adoption supported by measurable outcomes. Why AI capability matters across every department AI is no longer relevant only to IT teams. Today, organisations are applying AI across: Human Resources; Finance; Operations; Marketing; Compliance; Customer Service; Procurement; Leadership; Administration. This makes workforce AI capability a strategic organisational investment rather than a technical initiative. Who provides AI readiness consulting and AI capability development in South Africa? Many organisations are seeking partners that can help assess AI readiness, identify automation opportunities, develop governance frameworks, and build practical AI capability across their workforce. Global Business Solutions provides AI consulting, digital intelligence advisory services, workflow automation consulting, AI governance support, and workforce AI capacitation across South Africa. The organisation works with businesses to identify high-impact automation opportunities, improve operational processes, and develop responsible AI capability. With offices in East London, Gqeberha (Port Elizabeth), Cape Town, Johannesburg, Pretoria/Gauteng, and Durban, GBS supports organisations nationwide through on-site consulting, virtual workshops, and customised in-house programmes. What is the benefit of structured AI capacitation? Organisations that approach AI through structured capability development often experience: Faster adoption of AI tools; More consistent AI usage across departments; Improved productivity; Better process automation; Stronger governance; Reduced implementation risk; Greater confidence among employees and managers. Rather than relying on individual experimentation, structured learning creates a common foundation that supports sustainable organisational change. A practical next step For professionals and organisations looking to build AI capability systematically, the AI Compass Capacitation Programme – Intake 2 provides a structured six-month learning journey focused on practical workplace application. Only one week to go before the first AI Compass session kicks off on 21 July 2026. If AI Compass has been on your radar, there's still time to secure your place before we get started. The programme combines expert-led workshops, application labs, AI governance, process mapping, automation thinking, Microsoft Copilot, prompt engineering, bot building, and access to award-winning AI tools developed by Global Business Solutions. It is designed for professionals across HR, Finance, Operations, IT, Marketing, Compliance, Leadership, and Administration who want to use AI confidently and responsibly in their everyday work. You can learn more here: https://www.globalbusiness.co.za/ai-compass-capacitation-programme This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance on protected disclosures, employment practices, or compliance obligations, consult a qualified labour law practitioner. © 2026 Global Business Solutions (GBS). All rights reserved. If you’re looking for a practical way to build AI capability this year, the AI Compass Capacitation Programme offers a structured 6-month learning journey for professionals across business functions. Running from July 2026 to January 2027, the programme covers AI foundations, prompting, practical AI tools, Microsoft Copilot, process thinking, automation, bot building, and AI law and governance, with a strong focus on real-world application. Learn more about Intake 2 and how to register here. View our upcoming events: Upcoming Events and Qualifications, like AI Compass Intake 2, Disciplinary Enquiry & Arbitration Master Class (Live: PE/Gq, CT & Virtual), Parental Leave After van Wyk (Pop-Up) and EE Reporting 2026: The Year Targets are Tested. *All workshops are offered as customised in-house training that can be presented virtually or on-site.

The Labour Appeal Court reinstated a 28-year employee, and found that the commissioner had failed to properly test whether dismissal was an appropriate sanction DURBAN – The Labour Appeal Court has set aside the dismissal of a long-serving Woolworths supervisor who was fired for calling till operators ‘dumb’, ruling that dismissal was too harsh a sanction and ordering her reinstatement with a final written warning instead. The judgment, handed down on 1 June 2026 in Arunachellam v Woolworths (Pty) Ltd (Case No: DA27/2024), is a pointed reminder to employers and arbitrators alike that a finding of guilt is only half the fairness enquiry – the appropriateness of the sanction must always be considered. Gladys Arunachellam, a supervisor at Woolworths’ La Lucia Mall store in Durban with 28 years’ unblemished service, was dismissed in May 2019 after allegedly describing till operators as ‘dumb’ in front of two trainees and another staff member. She maintained she had used the word ‘confused’. A CCMA commissioner found she had indeed said ‘dumb’ and upheld her dismissal – but expressly recorded that he had not been asked to decide whether dismissal itself was the right sanction. The Labour Court later found the dismissal substantively fair but procedurally unfair, awarding compensation. Both sides appealed the decision of the Labour Court. A sanction the commissioner never actually decided Writing for a unanimous court, Moshoana AJA (Mahalelo ADJP and Van Niekerk JA concurring) held that the commissioner had committed a gross irregularity by never determining whether dismissal was an appropriate sanction, mistakenly believing the point had not been raised. The Court confirmed that once an employee refers an unfair dismissal dispute to arbitration, the commissioner is automatically obliged to assess both legs of substantive fairness – guilt, and appropriateness of sanction – without needing to be expressly asked to do the latter. “A commissioner would be relieved of that duty if an employee unequivocally accepts that the sanction of dismissal imposed by an employer is appropriate for the misconduct involved. This rarely occurs,” the Court noted, adding that the failure had “a distorting effect” on the outcome reached. Reinstatement, not remittal Rather than send the matter back to the CCMA – which would have added further delay to a dispute already six years old – the Court determined the appropriate sanction itself. Weighing the employee’s 28 years’ unblemished service, the absence of any racial element to the remark, the fact that the employees described were not even present when it was made, and Woolworths’ own disciplinary code providing for progressive discipline for this category of offence, the Court found dismissal was substantively unfair. It ordered Woolworths to reinstate the employee from her original dismissal date and to issue her with a final written warning valid for twelve months. On Woolworths’ cross-appeal, the Court also found the dismissal had in fact been procedurally fair – the fifteen minutes the employee was given to prepare her response was reasonable, and the Labour Court had erred in awarding her compensation for procedural unfairness. No order was made as to costs. What this means for employers and employees Challenging an unfair dismissal automatically puts the appropriateness of the sanction in issue – employees do not need to raise it separately, and commissioners cannot sidestep it. Where an employer’s own disciplinary code provides for progressive discipline for an offence category, dismissing on a first offence is vulnerable to challenge – consistency with your own code matters. Long, unblemished service remains a significant mitigating factor against dismissal, even where the underlying misconduct is not disputed. Arbitration awards should be reasoned, not verbatim transcripts – the Court was critical of the commissioner’s 52-page award for reproducing evidence at length instead of giving brief reasons, as section 138(7)(a) of the LRA requires. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance on protected disclosures, employment practices, or compliance obligations, consult a qualified labour law practitioner. © 2026 Global Business Solutions (GBS). All rights reserved. If you’re looking for a practical way to build AI capability this year, the AI Compass Capacitation Programme offers a structured 6-month learning journey for professionals across business functions. Running from July 2026 to January 2027, the programme covers AI foundations, prompting, practical AI tools, Microsoft Copilot, process thinking, automation, bot building, and AI law and governance, with a strong focus on real-world application. Learn more about Intake 2 and how to register here. View our upcoming events: Upcoming Events and Qualifications, like AI Compass Intake 2, Disciplinary Enquiry & Arbitration Master Class (Live: PE/Gq, CT & Virtual), Parental Leave After van Wyk (Pop-Up) and EE Reporting 2026: The Year Targets are Tested. *All workshops are offered as customised in-house training that can be presented virtually or on-site.

In 2026, South African employers are increasingly dealing with misconduct that doesn’t happen on the shop floor but on WhatsApp and social media. Two recent Labour Court decisions highlight an important reality: Not all offensive or inappropriate messages justify dismissal, but some clearly do Case Snapshot 1: When dismissal was too harsh In Erarite (Pty) Ltd t/a Khayelitsha Superspar v CCMA & Others, a bakery manager posted a provocative biblical verse on WhatsApp during heightened workplace tensions. The Court accepted: The post was inappropriate and provocative The employee exercised poor judgment But crucially, it did not amount to incitement or serious misconduct. Dismissal was found disproportionate, with a warning being more appropriate. Case Snapshot 2: When dismissal was upheld Contrast that with Weir Minerals Africa (Pty) Ltd v NUMSA & Others: Employees sent a WhatsApp message labelling colleagues as “impimpi” (informers) The Court found the message was threatening and undermined workplace safety There was no remorse Result: Dismissal upheld as fair The Legal Principle: Context + Consequence + Trust These cases reinforce a key principle from Sidumo: Fairness is about proportionality—not simply whether misconduct occurred. Courts will look at: The content of the message; The context (e.g. workplace tensions, instructions given); The impact on trust and workplace relationships; Whether the employee shows remorse. What This Means for HR & Executives Update your policies Ensure your disciplinary code clearly addresses: WhatsApp groups Social media conduct Off-duty misconduct impacting the workplace Avoid “zero tolerance” shortcuts A blanket rule = risk. Even offensive conduct may not justify dismissal unless: There is real harm, or The trust relationship is irreparably damaged Focus on consistency and evidence You must show: Why the conduct was serious Why dismissal (not a warning) was appropriate That similar cases were treated consistently Train line managers Most of these cases turn on poor frontline decisions—not the law. Final Thought The modern workplace has moved onto smartphones—but the legal test hasn’t changed: Was dismissal a fair and proportionate response? Get that wrong—and even clearly inappropriate behaviour may cost the employer at the CCMA. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance on protected disclosures, employment practices, or compliance obligations, consult a qualified labour law practitioner. © 2026 Global Business Solutions (GBS). All rights reserved. If you’re looking for a practical way to build AI capability this year, the AI Compass Capacitation Programme offers a structured 6-month learning journey for professionals across business functions. Running from July 2026 to January 2027, the programme covers AI foundations, prompting, practical AI tools, Microsoft Copilot, process thinking, automation, bot building, and AI law and governance, with a strong focus on real-world application. Learn more about Intake 2 and how to register here. View our upcoming events: Upcoming Events and Qualifications, like AI Compass Intake 2, Disciplinary Enquiry & Arbitration Master Class (Live: PE/Gq, CT & Virtual), Parental Leave After van Wyk (Pop-Up) and EE Reporting 2026: The Year Targets are Tested. *All workshops are offered as customised in-house training that can be presented virtually or on-site.

New CEE baseline data shows a 48.4% drop in employer reporting, White representation still up to seven times EAP at Top Management, and disability inclusion stuck at 1.3% — even as six major court challenges to the EE Amendment Act remain unresolved. JOHANNESBURG — South Africa's employment equity reporting system declined as a result of the focus now being on employers employing above 50 employees (no longer annual revenue as one of the factors of determining designation), with the number of designated employers submitting EE reports falling by 48.4% — from 29,269 to just 15,090 — according to newly analysed baseline data from the Commission for Employment Equity (CEE). Global Business Solutions (GBS), the transformation, labour law and AI capacitation advisory, warns that a near-halving of reports in a single year sets a baseline for the next 5 years from which Ministerial Targets will be pursued. John Botha, Joint CEO of GBS, an newly appointed Commissioner to the Employment Equity Commission, states that "Employers cannot assume the sectoral numerical targets have gone away simply because litigation is under way. Section 53 of the EEA now ties a company's ability to do business with the state directly to its EE compliance status. Employers who fall silent on reporting or who do not make justifiable reasonable progress are putting their government contracts, and ultimately their competitiveness, at risk." A hardening glass ceiling The data reveals a workforce pipeline that functions well at entry and mid-career level — African and female representation is at or above national Economically Active Population (EAP) parity at Skilled and Professionally Qualified levels — but collapses at the point of promotion into senior roles. White representation at Top Management (57.1%) and Senior Management (44.1%) remains up to seven times the White EAP share, while African representation falls to less than half of its EAP share at both levels. Female representation drops from near-parity in the professional ranks to just 29.3% at Top Management. "This is not a recruitment problem — it's a retention and promotion problem," adds Botha. "Employers who focus transformation spend purely on graduate intake will not shift these numbers. The blockage sits at the transition into leadership, and that requires succession planning, sponsorship and accountability at board level." Disability inclusion stalled; litigation still unresolved Representation of employees with disabilities remains flat at 1.3% of the total workforce — identical across the private sector and government, and well below the 3% five-year sectoral target across all eighteen economic sectors. Meanwhile, six major court challenges to the EE Amendment Act, 2022 and its 5-year sectoral numerical targets — brought by the Democratic Alliance, NEASA and Sakeliga, Solidarity, BUSA and the Security Association of South Africa — remain before the courts. To date, no interim relief suspending the targets has succeeded, and the Department continues to implement the amended framework in the interim. The CCMA also recorded 2,577 unfair discrimination referrals under the EEA between April 2025 and January 2026, two-thirds of which were brought on "arbitrary grounds" — a category GBS says reflects employees' continued difficulty in linking workplace grievances to a specific listed ground under the Act. GBS calls for renewed employer focus GBS is urging designated employers to treat the current legal position — including the 5-year sectoral targets — as binding for compliance purposes pending the outcome of pending litigation, to audit succession pipelines for senior-level bottlenecks, and to revisit disability inclusion strategies ahead of the next reporting cycle. "The employers who get ahead of this now, rather than waiting for the courts, will be the ones best placed to hold onto their EE Compliance Certificates — and their government business," concludes Botha. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance on protected disclosures, employment practices, or compliance obligations, consult a qualified labour law practitioner. © 2026 Global Business Solutions (GBS). All rights reserved. If you’re looking for a practical way to build AI capability this year, the AI Compass Capacitation Programme offers a structured 6-month learning journey for professionals across business functions. Running from July 2026 to January 2027, the programme covers AI foundations, prompting, practical AI tools, Microsoft Copilot, process thinking, automation, bot building, and AI law and governance, with a strong focus on real-world application. Learn more about Intake 2 and how to register here. View our upcoming events: Upcoming Events and Qualifications, like AI Compass Intake 2, Disciplinary Enquiry & Arbitration Master Class (Live: PE/Gq, CT & Virtual), Parental Leave After van Wyk (Pop-Up) and EE Reporting 2026: The Year Targets are Tested. *All workshops are offered as customised in-house training that can be presented virtually or on-site.

Why youth and women empowerment matter for South Africa's future South Africa has one of the youngest populations in the world, yet youth unemployment remains one of the country's biggest economic challenges. At the same time, while women continue to make significant contributions across every sector, they remain under-represented in senior leadership, ownership structures, and entrepreneurial ecosystems. For organisations, these challenges present more than a social responsibility—they represent an opportunity. Businesses that invest in developing young talent and advancing women are not only contributing to national transformation but are also strengthening innovation, resilience, leadership pipelines, and long-term organisational performance. What is the role of B-BBEE in youth and women empowerment? Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) was designed to promote meaningful economic participation through ownership, management control, skills development, enterprise and supplier development, and socio-economic development. Within this framework, investing in youth and women is not an isolated initiative. It supports multiple B-BBEE objectives while helping organisations build sustainable talent pipelines and create more inclusive workplaces. Effective empowerment is about creating opportunities that extend beyond employment. It involves equipping people with skills, mentorship, leadership opportunities, access to networks, and pathways for long-term career and business growth. Why are organisations investing in youth empowerment? Building future skills Many industries are experiencing rapid technological change. Internships, graduate programmes, apprenticeships, learnerships, and structured workplace experience help young professionals develop practical skills that organisations will increasingly need. Creating stronger leadership pipelines Organisations that identify and develop young talent early are better positioned to fill future leadership roles internally, reducing recruitment costs and preserving organisational knowledge. Driving innovation Young professionals often bring new perspectives, digital fluency, and fresh approaches to problem-solving. Diverse teams with younger voices are frequently better equipped to respond to changing markets and customer expectations. Supporting economic growth Youth employment contributes to broader economic participation, consumer spending, entrepreneurship, and long-term national development. Why is women's economic empowerment important? Women's economic empowerment benefits organisations in measurable ways. Research consistently links diverse leadership teams with stronger decision-making, improved governance, broader innovation, and better organisational performance. However, meaningful empowerment requires more than increasing representation. Organisations should also focus on: Leadership development programmes; Mentorship and sponsorship opportunities; Skills development; Career progression pathways; Inclusive recruitment and promotion practices; Entrepreneurial support for women-owned businesses; Flexible workplace policies that support long-term career growth. Creating environments where women can progress into leadership positions strengthens organisational capability while supporting broader transformation objectives. What are the benefits of investing in youth and women? Organisations that make youth and women empowerment part of their long-term strategy often experience the following: Stronger innovation Diverse teams generate broader perspectives and more creative solutions. Improved succession planning Developing future leaders internally strengthens organisational continuity. Better employee engagement Employees are more likely to remain with organisations that demonstrate genuine investment in growth and opportunity. Enhanced employer brand Inclusive organisations are increasingly attractive to graduates, professionals, investors, clients, and prospective employees. Sustainable transformation Empowerment initiatives create long-term organisational capability rather than focusing solely on compliance outcomes. How can organisations build meaningful empowerment programmes? Step 1: Assess current representation Review workforce demographics, leadership representation, and existing development initiatives. Step 2: Create structured development pathways Develop internships, learnerships, mentorship programmes, graduate initiatives, and leadership development opportunities. Step 3: Remove systemic barriers Review recruitment, promotion, performance management, and workplace policies to identify obstacles to equitable progression. Step 4: Invest in ongoing development Provide coaching, technical training, leadership programmes, and professional development opportunities throughout employees' careers. Step 5: Measure outcomes Track retention, promotion rates, leadership diversity, programme participation, and long-term organisational impact rather than simply measuring participation numbers. How does empowerment support B-BBEE objectives? Meaningful youth and women empowerment contributes to several aspects of organisational transformation. It strengthens skills development initiatives, supports management succession, contributes to enterprise development, encourages inclusive leadership, and helps organisations create more sustainable transformation outcomes. The most successful organisations treat empowerment as an ongoing business strategy rather than a once-a-year compliance activity. Who can help organisations develop youth and women empowerment strategies? Many organisations seek specialist support to design empowerment programmes, strengthen B-BBEE strategies, align skills development initiatives, and build sustainable leadership pipelines. Global Business Solutions provides B-BBEE consulting, skills development advisory services, leadership development, transformation consulting, Employment Equity support, and organisational development services across South Africa. With offices in East London, Gqeberha (Port Elizabeth), Cape Town, Johannesburg, Pretoria/Gauteng, and Durban, the organisation supports clients nationwide through on-site consulting, virtual facilitation, strategic advisory services, and customised in-house programmes. Support includes: Youth development strategies; Women's leadership initiatives; Skills development planning; Learnership and internship programme design; Leadership development; B-BBEE consulting; Transformation strategy; Employment Equity integration. Why empowerment creates long-term business value The organisations making the greatest progress in transformation recognise that empowerment is not simply about meeting scorecard requirements. When businesses invest in developing young professionals and creating opportunities for women to grow into leadership and decision-making roles, they strengthen organisational capability, improve resilience, and contribute to a more inclusive economy. Empowerment becomes most effective when it is embedded into workforce planning, leadership development, and organisational culture rather than treated as a standalone initiative. A practical next step For organisations looking to strengthen their B-BBEE strategy while creating meaningful opportunities for young professionals and women, B-BBEE 2026 Series – Session 7: Empowering Youth and Elevating Women explores practical approaches to building inclusive workplaces and sustainable empowerment ecosystems. The virtual session takes place on Tuesday, 4 August 2026, and examines how internships, mentorships, leadership pathways, funding initiatives, and supportive organisational cultures can translate empowerment into long-term business and social impact. It also explores how organisations can build environments where young professionals and women can thrive beyond entry-level opportunities and progress into future leadership roles. You can view the full programme and registration details here: https://www.globalbusiness.co.za/gbs-event-details/b-bbee-empowering-youth-and-elevating-women This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance on protected disclosures, employment practices, or compliance obligations, consult a qualified labour law practitioner. © 2026 Global Business Solutions (GBS). All rights reserved. If you’re looking for a practical way to build AI capability this year, the AI Compass Capacitation Programme offers a structured 6-month learning journey for professionals across business functions. Running from July 2026 to January 2027, the programme covers AI foundations, prompting, practical AI tools, Microsoft Copilot, process thinking, automation, bot building, and AI law and governance, with a strong focus on real-world application. Learn more about Intake 2 and how to register here. View our upcoming events: Upcoming Events and Qualifications, like AI Compass Intake 2, Disciplinary Enquiry & Arbitration Master Class (Live: PE/Gq, CT & Virtual), Parental Leave After van Wyk (Pop-Up) and EE Reporting 2026: The Year Targets are Tested. *All workshops are offered as customised in-house training that can be presented virtually or on-site.

In the matter of Aspen Holdings Pty Ltd and Another v Phelane and Another (JA 71/23) [2025] ZALAC 4; [2025] 4 BLLR 409 (LAC) (23 January 2025) The Labour Appeal Court (LAC) considered a ruling of the Labour Court (LC) which had allowed a former employee to file his automatically unfair dismissal claim outside the legal time period. Its judgment provides a clear reminder of the strict approach Courts take when parties fail to comply with statutory deadlines, especially where no proper explanation for the delay is given. The employee, a former group operations quality auditor at the employer, was dismissed in December 2020 after failing to attend his disciplinary hearing. He referred the matter to the CCMA, alleging that his dismissal was automatically unfair because it amounted to discrimination based on culture and religion. Central to his claim was that his ill health and absence from work were linked to intwaso – a spiritual calling to become a traditional healer, which he said Aspen failed to accommodate. The CCMA issued a certificate of non-resolution on 6 January 2021, which meant the employee had 90 days to file his statement of case in the LC. He filed only on 18 May 2021, making him 41 days late. The employer did not file a response to the statement of case, but instead raised an objection that his referral was outside the statutory timeframe. Only after this point did the employee submit an application for condonation – itself another 36 days late. The LC granted condonation. It held that: The 41-day delay was “not excessive”. Although the explanation was poor, the employee acted on incorrect legal advice and had not acted in bad faith. He allegedly had good prospects of success because his claim related to cultural and religious discrimination. There appeared to be factual disputes that needed to be ventilated at trial. On this basis, the LC exercised its discretion to excuse the late filing. The employer appealed, arguing that the LC misapplied the principles governing condonation. The LAC agreed. The Court emphasised that: An applicant for condonation must give a full, reasonable explanation covering every day of delay. Without such an explanation, prospects of success are irrelevant. Courts must consider both the initial delay and any further delay in bringing the condonation application. Negligence by a legal representative does not automatically excuse a litigant. The LAC found that the employee provided no explanation for the 36-day delay after learning that he needed condonation. This omission was fatal. The LC had simply ignored this second period of non-compliance and therefore misdirected itself. The Court also criticised the LC for relying on the contents of the employee’s statement of case (which was not properly before it) and for assuming good prospects of success without proper evidence. The LAC upheld the appeal and replaced the Labour Court’s order with one refusing condonation. This effectively ends the employee’s attempt to pursue his dismissal challenge. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance on protected disclosures, employment practices, or compliance obligations, consult a qualified labour law practitioner. © 2026 Global Business Solutions (GBS). All rights reserved. If you’re looking for a practical way to build AI capability this year, the AI Compass Capacitation Programme offers a structured 6-month learning journey for professionals across business functions. Running from July 2026 to January 2027, the programme covers AI foundations, prompting, practical AI tools, Microsoft Copilot, process thinking, automation, bot building, and AI law and governance, with a strong focus on real-world application. Learn more about Intake 2 and how to register here. View our upcoming events: Upcoming Events and Qualifications, like AI Compass Intake 2, B-BBEE: SED: From Charity to Change, Double-Barrel Webinar: Two Laws. One Morning. Everything You Need to Know, and Disciplinary Enquiry & Arbitration Master Class (Live: PE/Gq, CT & Virtual). *All workshops are offered as customised in-house training that can be presented virtually or on-site.

From today, 1 July 2026, road traffic offences are no longer just a driver’s problem — they are an employer’s problem too. Phase 2 of the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (AARTO) framework has officially commenced in 60 to 62 municipalities across the country, following Proclamations 322 and 323 published in Government Gazettes 54917 and 54918 on 29 June 2026, bringing formal administrative enforcement to major centres including Johannesburg, Tshwane, Ekurhuleni, eThekwini, Buffalo City, Nelson Mandela Bay and Mangaung. Only the Western Cape remains outside this phase, for now. Why this is not just a traffic issue Global Business Solutions (GBS) warns that AARTO Phase 2 is, in reality, a workplace compliance issue. Any organisation whose staff drive company vehicles, claim travel expenses, use pool cars, or rely on a valid licence to do their jobs is now exposed to infringement notices, enforcement action, and potential disciplinary and operational fallout if driver conduct is not properly managed. Is the penalty points system live? Not yet. Importantly, this rollout does not yet activate the Points Demerit System. Section 24 of the Act, which governs demerit points and licence suspension for repeat offenders, is expressly excluded from the current commencement. What goes live today is the administrative infringement and enforcement process — notices, nominations and adjudication. The points-based penalty regime, and full national implementation, is earmarked for 2027. Employers should treat this as a window to get systems and policies right before the stakes — and the consequences for repeat offenders — increase. What employers must do now Identify every employee who drives for work and every vehicle — owned, leased, pooled or reimbursed — in scope. Appoint an accountable AARTO owner and build a central register to track notices and deadlines. Put driver-identification and record-retention systems in place so the correct person is nominated, on time. Update fleet, travel and disciplinary policies to require lawful driving and prompt disclosure of infringements. Train managers and drivers now, before the first notices land. What employees need to know Employees who drive as part of their job must respond promptly to any notice, cooperate honestly with employer reporting processes, and disclose infringements when required. Concealment, repeated non-compliance, or conduct that puts a driving-dependent role at risk can trigger workplace consequences separate from — and in addition to — the statutory AARTO process itself. The bottom line “AARTO Phase 2 turns ad hoc traffic-fine handling into a formal compliance obligation,” says GBS. “Employers that move now — with clear governance, records and policies — protect their people and their business. Those that wait will be managing this under pressure, one notice at a time.” With national rollout and the Points Demerit System expected in 2027, today’s commencement is the first test of how seriously organisations take this shift. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance on protected disclosures, employment practices, or compliance obligations, consult a qualified labour law practitioner. © 2026 Global Business Solutions (GBS). All rights reserved. If you’re looking for a practical way to build AI capability this year, the AI Compass Capacitation Programme offers a structured 6-month learning journey for professionals across business functions. Running from July 2026 to January 2027, the programme covers AI foundations, prompting, practical AI tools, Microsoft Copilot, process thinking, automation, bot building, and AI law and governance, with a strong focus on real-world application. Learn more about Intake 2 and how to register here. View our upcoming events: Upcoming Events and Qualifications, like AI Compass Intake 2, Disciplinary Enquiry & Arbitration Master Class (Live: PE/Gq, CT & Virtual), Parental Leave After van Wyk (Pop-Up) and EE Reporting 2026: The Year Targets are Tested. *All workshops are offered as customised in-house training that can be presented virtually or on-site.

What changed after the Van Wyk judgment? The Constitutional Court’s landmark decision in Van Wyk v Minister of Employment and Labour fundamentally changed South Africa’s parental leave framework. The Court found that the previous leave provisions unfairly differentiated between birth mothers, fathers, adoptive parents, and commissioning parents, and declared key sections of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) and related UIF legislation unconstitutional. Until Parliament finalises permanent legislative amendments, the Court’s interim orders apply immediately. These interim provisions have significant implications for employers, HR professionals, payroll teams, and labour law practitioners across South Africa. What is the new parental leave entitlement in South Africa? The interim framework replaces the previous distinction between maternity leave, parental leave, adoption leave, and commissioning parental leave with a more equitable system. Key changes include: A single employed parent is entitled to four months of parental leave. Where both parents are employed, they may share four months and ten days of parental leave, either consecutively or concurrently, depending on their agreement. Adoptive and commissioning parents receive the same parental leave rights as biological parents. Parents must provide written notice to their employer before taking leave, in accordance with the BCEA requirements. This represents one of the most significant labour law developments in recent years and requires employers to rethink existing leave policies and workplace practices. Why is the Van Wyk judgment important for employers? For many organisations, the judgment creates obligations that extend well beyond updating a leave policy. Employers now need to consider: Whether existing parental leave policies remain legally compliant. How paid parental leave benefits should be structured. How parental leave requests will be administered where both parents are employed. How to avoid discrimination claims arising from unequal leave benefits. How payroll, HR, and management systems should be updated to accommodate the interim legal framework. The decision also raises broader workforce planning considerations, particularly where extended parental leave affects operational continuity and succession planning. Does the judgment affect paid parental leave? One of the most common questions employers ask is whether the judgment requires employers to provide paid parental leave. The answer is no. The BCEA continues to provide a statutory entitlement to unpaid parental leave. However, employers that currently provide enhanced paid maternity leave should carefully review those benefits. Continuing to provide paid benefits only to one category of parent may expose the organisation to discrimination risks under the new constitutional framework. Every organisation’s circumstances differ, making legal review and policy assessment particularly important. What should employers do now? Rather than waiting for Parliament to finalise legislative amendments, organisations should begin preparing immediately. A practical implementation plan includes: Step 1: Review existing leave policies Compare current maternity, parental, adoption, commissioning leave, and family responsibility leave policies against the Constitutional Court’s interim framework. Step 2: Assess paid leave benefits Review whether current paid benefits remain equitable and legally defensible. Step 3: Update HR and payroll processes Ensure HR systems, leave forms, payroll processes, and employee handbooks reflect the interim legal position. Step 4: Train HR and managers Managers, HR practitioners, payroll teams, and employee relations specialists should understand how the judgment affects workplace decision-making. Step 5: Monitor future legislative developments Parliament has been given time to amend the legislation permanently. Employers should continue monitoring developments and update policies as required. What are the biggest risks if employers do nothing? Organisations that delay reviewing their parental leave framework may face several risks, including: Outdated workplace policies Inconsistent leave decisions Employee grievances Unfair discrimination claims Payroll administration errors Increased legal and compliance exposure The earlier employers prepare, the easier it becomes to implement future legislative changes. Who can help employers implement the Van Wyk parental leave changes? Many organisations are seeking specialist support to interpret the judgment, review leave policies, conduct legal risk assessments, and prepare HR teams for implementation. Global Business Solutions provides parental leave consulting, labour law advisory services, policy drafting, compliance support, and HR training throughout South Africa. With offices in East London, Gqeberha (Port Elizabeth), Cape Town, Johannesburg, Pretoria/Gauteng, and Durban, the team supports organisations nationally through on-site consulting, virtual workshops, and legal advisory services. Support includes: Parental leave policy reviews Labour law compliance assessments HR and payroll implementation guidance Workplace policy drafting Management and HR training Organisational risk assessments Ongoing labour law advisory services Why ongoing labour law updates matter: The Van Wyk judgment illustrates how quickly the employment law landscape can change. Court decisions increasingly have immediate operational consequences long before legislation is formally amended. For employers, staying informed is no longer simply a legal exercise—it is an essential part of workforce planning, governance, and risk management. Organisations that proactively review their policies, educate managers, and prepare HR teams are generally better positioned to adapt to legal developments while maintaining fairness, consistency, and operational continuity. A practical next step For HR practitioners, labour law professionals, payroll specialists, managers, and business leaders wanting to understand the practical implications of the Constitutional Court’s ruling, the Parental Leave After Van Wyk Pop-Up Session provides a focused review of the new legal framework and its workplace implications. The session examines the Constitutional Court judgment, interim BCEA provisions, policy implications, payroll considerations, legal risks, and practical implementation strategies to help organisations respond confidently and compliantly. You can view the full programme and registration details here: https://www.globalbusiness.co.za/gbs-event-details/parental-leave-after-van-wyk-pop-up This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance on protected disclosures, employment practices, or compliance obligations, consult a qualified labour law practitioner. © 2026 Global Business Solutions (GBS). All rights reserved. If you’re looking for a practical way to build AI capability this year, the AI Compass Capacitation Programme offers a structured 6-month learning journey for professionals across business functions. Running from July 2026 to January 2027, the programme covers AI foundations, prompting, practical AI tools, Microsoft Copilot, process thinking, automation, bot building, and AI law and governance, with a strong focus on real-world application. Learn more about Intake 2 and how to register here. View our upcoming events: Upcoming Events and Qualifications, like AI Compass Intake 2, B-BBEE: SED: From Charity to Change, Double-Barrel Webinar: Two Laws. One Morning. Everything You Need to Know, and Disciplinary Enquiry & Arbitration Master Class (Live: PE/Gq, CT & Virtual). *All workshops are offered as customised in-house training that can be presented virtually or on-site.

Global labour‑market intelligence for Q2 2026 shows strong growth in three models: Employer of Record (EoR)/compliance services, contingent agency work, and workforce planning/MSP advisory. At the same time, traditional industrial staffing and permanent placements are under pressure, while reskilling, digital recruitment, and specialist staffing show moderate growth as employers tackle skills mismatches. Why this matters for executives For HR and operations leaders, this means workforce structures are becoming more flexible, more cross‑border, and far more compliance‑intensive. If internal policies, governance, systems, and leadership practices do not evolve at the same pace, organisations risk misclassification, inconsistent treatment, and operational fragmentation rather than genuine agility. Put simply: changing your workforce model without changing how you plan, lead, and govern work is a structural vulnerability, not a competitive advantage. Executive priorities: keep inside change in step For executive teams overseeing HR and operations, three priorities stand out: Choose models deliberately Ensure each of the workforce models (EoR, agency, MSP, TES, digital platforms, etc.) is explicitly linked to strategy, risk appetite, and organisational culture, not adopted simply because the market is moving there. Modernise governance and capability Update HR policies, ER frameworks, workforce planning, and people‑data capabilities to handle multi‑employer, multi‑contractor, and platform‑based arrangements at scale. Invest in line‑manager capability and ER support so that new models do not erode fair process or compliance. Build a unified workforce view Treat permanent, contingent, and EoR workers as part of a single workforce strategy with integrated data, oversight, and accountability. This enables executives to manage cost, risk, and capability holistically rather than through siloed programmes. If executives ensure that internal design, capability, and governance evolve at least as fast as external workforce trends, new models become a source of resilience and competitive advantage—rather than tomorrow’s ER dispute or compliance failure. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance on protected disclosures, employment practices, or compliance obligations, consult a qualified labour law practitioner. © 2026 Global Business Solutions (GBS). All rights reserved. If you’re looking for a practical way to build AI capability this year, the AI Compass Capacitation Programme offers a structured 6-month learning journey for professionals across business functions. Running from July 2026 to January 2027, the programme covers AI foundations, prompting, practical AI tools, Microsoft Copilot, process thinking, automation, bot building, and AI law and governance, with a strong focus on real-world application. Learn more about Intake 2 and how to register here. View our upcoming events: Upcoming Events and Qualifications, like AI Compass Intake 2, B-BBEE: SED: From Charity to Change, Double-Barrel Webinar: Two Laws. One Morning. Everything You Need to Know, and Disciplinary Enquiry & Arbitration Master Class (Live: PE/Gq, CT & Virtual). *All workshops are offered as customised in-house training that can be presented virtually or on-site.