Colleagues

Firstly we would want to extend our gratitude to all our clients, followers and subscribers. We trust that 2026 will be most successful.

In this issue we briefly look at what can be expected from a national minimum wage increase perspective and we provide our best “guesstimate”. We also then look at an interesting matter which went as far as the Labour Appeals Court where an arbitrator went beyond the scope of the charges that gave rise to the dismissal, only to rely on a “unexcepted fourth allegation” which was not part of the formal charge sheet, to uphold the applicants dismissal.

National Minimum Wage Act 2026

As you may be aware Commentary on the proposed increase on the National Minimum Wage ended on the 12th of January 2026. A proposed increase of inflation plus 1.5% was tabled, however a minimum of 3 % is at least expected which would bring the wage anything between R29-68, or then just over R30-10 if the increase is linked to an inflation plus 1.5 % scenario.

The 2026 adjustment is also important as it concludes the Commission’s current medium-term framework of guaranteeing above-inflation increases. Therefore the likelihood exists, that future increases will more closely be aligned with average wages in the economy, as opposed to above-inflation based increases.

We still await the final increase however anything between 3 – 4.5% seems likely.

Does the actual charge or label of the charge matter in disciplinary processes?

In the matter Machi v CHEP SA (Pty) Ltd (LAC) the employee during the arbitration was found not guilty on the three charges she was dismissed for by the employer during the internal disciplinary enquiry.

However in the leading of evidence in the arbitration an “unexpressed fourth allegation” arose which the arbitrator held as having severed the employment trust relationship. Therefore although not charged for, or dismissed for this specific “fourth allegation” in the internal enquiry, the commissioner held that the extent thereof which arose during evidence in the arbitration was sufficient to uphold the employees dismissal which related to different charges. In effect this fourth unexpressed charge arose as a derivative of charges 1 and 2.

In this scenario the “fourth allegation” pertained to the same incident and the Labour Appeal Court maintained the position of the arbitrator citing EOH Abantu v CCMA & Others that courts and arbitrators should not take a too formalistic or technical approach when dealing with these matters and that categorisation is of less importance.

Looking beyond the label of the charge and identifying the true nature of the misconduct and upholding the dismissal ultimately, was held to be the correct approach.

This is one of severeal matters where substance above form is again demonstrated, meaning that employers are not expected to allways correctly and techincally categorise or correctly cite charges, but that the nature of the offence is more important and the employees right to raise a defense.

As always we are here to help, please share this with someone who may benefit.