CCMA ruled that each worker receive their full annual salary of more than R160 000 as compensation.
The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) recently ordered Gamagara municipality in the Northern Cape to pay six workers 12 months’ compensation each after unfairly dismissing them a day after they were employed.
The women were hired as general assistants on 1 July 2025, but were dismissed the following day without a valid reason.
CCMA ruled that each worker receive their full annual salary of more than R160 000 as compensation.
Workers called for interviews in February
The dispute began when the workers were called for interviews in February 2025 in Kathu.
On 18 June 2025 they received calls for them to sign appointment letters. The appointment letters indicated they would commence work on 1 July.
When the six workers arrived at the municipality on 1 July, they were told to wait for their personal protective equipment.
They performed no actual work on their first day.
“At the end of the day, they were told to report the following morning at 7.30am for induction,” according to the Orange Farm Human Rights Advice Centre.
ALSO READ: Here’s why employers can’t use NDAs to hide harassment in the workplace
Immediate dismissal and positions re-advertised
When the workers arrived on 2 July, they were served with letters withdrawing their appointment letters.
The letters said that an error was made when the shortlisted names were printed, hence the withdrawal.
Worker Itlotlo Tong testified that they did not agree with the assertion that an error was made.
“There was no hearing, they were just terminated with immediate effect,” she said in her testimony.
The municipality’s HR manager, Appie Kabelo, served them with both the original appointment and withdrawal letters.
The workers were never told who were the correct names that were supposed to be appointed.
On the same day as the dismissals, the municipality re-advertised the same positions.
The only difference was that the positions were originally advertised as external positions but were now advertised as internal positions.
CCMA default award
The workers contacted the Orange Farm Human Rights Advice Centre for support in bringing their cases to the CCMA.
According to the award, the municipality failed to appear at the hearing despite proper notification.
Before proceeding with the default arbitration, commissioner Amogelang Shadrack Bacwadi contacted municipal manager Lebogang Seetile, who confirmed the CCMA had served the correct email address of the human resource manager.
Seetile told the mediator that he did not know why HR did not attend the proceedings.
ALSO READ: Clicks nurse says she was ‘victimised for reporting sexual harassment’
CCMA commissioner’s scathing criticism
Bacwadi delivered a harsh criticism of the municipality’s actions in his award.
“The reason for withdrawal of the appointment letters as stipulated in the withdrawal letters is a lame excuse, for the mere fact that the same positions were re-advertised as internal positions,” he ruled.
The commissioner noted that the workers were issued appointment letters on 19 June 2025 to start 1 July 2025 and these letters were issued by HR.
During this time, the workers were never informed about any error in terms of their appointment.
“The reason for the withdrawal is therefore strange, improbable and unacceptable,” Bacwadi said.
Impossible error claims rejected
The commissioner rejected the municipality’s explanation entirely.
“If it was indeed as claimed, this should have at least been picked up before the applicants could even report for work. The same person who issued the applicants with the appointment letters was the same person who issued them with the withdrawal letters (HR),” he noted.
Bacwadi questioned when the HR manager became aware of the supposed error.
He pointed out that when workers reported for work on 1 July this was never brought to their attention.
Instead, they were told about their personal protective equipment and that they would be informed when to come for their induction.
“It is impossible that that there could have been an error,” the commissioner said.
ALSO READ: Dead man’s estate wins R800k from police minister for unlawful arrest and detention
Legal precedent applied
In his legal analysis, Bacwadi referenced the case of Wyeth SA (Pty) Ltd v Manqele, noting that the Labour Appeal Court found that a person becomes an employee the moment an employment contract is signed, even before commencing work.
The commissioner applied section 192 of the Labour Relations Act, which places the burden of proof on employers to show dismissals were fair.
“The applicants established in their evidence they were dismissed. The onus rests with the employer to prove on a balance of probabilities that the dismissal of the applicants was procedurally and substantively fair,” he ruled.
Government institution held to higher standard
Bacwadi emphasised that municipalities must meet higher standards as government institutions.
He noted that municipalities are responsible for providing local services, including employment and must have competent HR personnel.
“Considering that the employer is a government institution that is expected to have competent HR personnel who are well vested in the labour laws of this country and are expected to abide by them, I am of the view that the employer disregarded the labour laws of this country in dismissing the applicants in the manner that they did,” Bacwadi ruled.
CCMA commissioner justifies year’s worth wages
The commissioner concluded that maximum compensation was warranted given the circumstances.
He found that the municipality failed to comply with requirements that dismissals should be for fair reasons and follow fair procedures.
“There is no evidence that suggest that they contravened any rule when they were dismissed on 2 July 2025. I therefore find that the dismissal was not appropriate and it is unfair.
Final CCMA award details
“I find that the dismissal of the applicants by the employer (Gamagara municipality) was procedurally and substantively unfair.”
The award orders compensation of 12 months’ salary for each worker, though the written award contains an apparent error stating “six months’ salary” in one paragraph while consistently referring to 12 months elsewhere and in the actual compensation amounts.
The municipality must pay each of the workers R162 935 by August 30, 2025.
If the municipality fails to pay by the deadline, interest will accrue at the prescribed rate for judgment debts as set out in the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act of 1975.
Victory during women’s month
Patrick Mlaba from the Orange Farm Human Rights Advice Centre celebrated the victory.
“What is important is that at least during Women’s Month, we did something to further and honour their celebration and this should be an achievement to all women out there,” Mlaba said.
The Orange Farm Human Rights Advice Centre expressed satisfaction with the outcome, saying it was “very pleased with this victory of the women workers”.
READ NEXT: Man accused of eating ‘smelly’ lunch dismissed after taking company to court
