On 26 February 2026 the Minister of Employment and Labour gazetted the Labour Relations Amendment Bill and the Labour Law Amendment Bill for public comment.
What are the key changes proposed and should employers be making any submissions or raising objections? We set out some of the important provisions in the Labour Relations Amendment Bill in this article, whilst we focus on the changes in the Labour Law Amendment Bill in Part 2.
Main Agreements not Applicable to Smaller Employers
One of the most controversial proposed amendments is the intended exemption of ‘new employers’ – employing less than fifty employees – from compliance with bargaining council agreements for the first two years after they are established.
Most bargaining council agreements provide for specific benefits such as pension fund contributions, holiday funds, sick funds, working hour limitations, mandatory shut-down periods, etc… These benefits substantially increase wage bills.
The intention of the amendment is clearly to incentivize the establishment of smaller businesses by removing red tape and allowing them to get off the ground without the ‘burden’ of the additional pay and benefits applicable in terms of extended bargaining council collective agreements.
Many existing employers, however, will complain that this change might place them at an unfair disadvantage in circumstances where their own wage bills will necessarily be higher (often substantially) because they are compliant.
Bargaining councils themselves might also be aggrieved, with many already being happy to grant exemptions to newly established businesses who apply for them. Councils might also wonder why newly established businesses should not be required to at least register with the bargaining council upon establishment, even if payment will be delayed or deferred for a two-year period.
Bargaining councils will, however, be happy with the proposed increase of the period that funding agreements can be extended from 12 to 36 months.
Dismissal of Probationary Employees
It is proposed that section 188 of the LRA, requiring the employer to prove that a dismissal was effected for a fair reason and after a fair procedure, should not apply during first three months of employment and/or during a probationary period (i.e. where the probationary period is longer).
The CCMA has often mischaracterized probationary assessments as being akin to poor work performance processes which often required counselling, training and assistance. Employers have been aggrieved where they have been compelled to reinstate employees who have performed poorly during probation.
The proposed change is a positive development because it will likely incentivize employment without the risk of a dispute where a new hire does not demonstrate the required competencies. It is debatable as to whether the period should be longer, such as the two year period that applies in the UK applicable to ordinary unfair dismissals (being reduced by the Labour Government to six months with effect from 2027).
Dismissal & High Earners
Employers will generally be satisfied with the proposed amendment to section 193 of the LRA which is aimed at preventing ‘high-paid employees’ (as determined by the Minister / R1.8 Million per annum) from claiming reinstatement where a dismissal is not automatically unfair.
Distinguishing between categories of employees based on their level of earnings is nothing new. The existing BCEA threshold is used to determine, amongst other things, who is entitled to overtime, which temporary workers derive certain statutory protections, who benefits from the expanded jurisdiction of the CCMA and various other protection.
The determination of the threshold for removing an employee’s right to reinstatement might however be arbitrary and it is likely to become a hotly contested amendment. Whether such an amendment will pass the test of constitutionality also remains to be seen.
Picketing Rules and Facilitators
Section 69 of the LRA is intended to be amended to allow commissioners appointed to facilitate large scale retrenchments to simultaneously deal with picketing Rules and ultimately impose picketing rules where there is no agreement.
This proposal is born out of pragmatism. Employees who are dissatisfied after receiving a notice of retrenchment may elect between referring an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA or calling a strike to compel the employer to re-visit the decision to retrench.
Where an intention to strike is indicated, the facilitating commissioner may deal with picketing rules without a separate referral being made to the CCMA.
Non-Compliant Unions and Federations
The Bill proposes to empower the Minister to issue guidelines to the Registrar regarding the withdrawal of registration status of Unions (and Employer’s organisations). This may be a precursor to stronger action being taken by the Registrar because of the financial mismanagement of Unions.
It is also proposed that the Minister should be empowered to issue guidelines to the Registrar in relation to the withdrawal of a Federation of Trade Unions (or Federation of Employers Organisations) registration. These include provisions in relation to the issuance of compliance notices and the publication of the Registrar’s intention to remove the Federation.
In the meantime, section 98 of the LRA is also intended to be amended to allow the Minister to impose prescribed financial reporting obligations for Unions. This is a positive development.
Jurisdiction of Bargaining Councils
It is proposed to extend the jurisdiction of bargaining councils accredited to perform dispute resolution functions so as to permit them to deal with conciliations and arbitration arising out of ‘employment law’, a term which encompasses much more than the LRA only.
The extension of accreditation is a positive development. Disputes that might have previously been required to be resolved by the CCMA only, may now be resolved through bargaining council dispute resolution mechanisms (provided they are accredited). This should reduce the case load at the CCMA, but will likely lead to increased dispute resolution levies to fund the additional workload.
This appears to be an attempt by the Minister to divest the CCMA of certain exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the budget cuts experienced by the CCMA, and the relentless tide of disputes being referred to it.
Enforcement
Section 143 of the LRA has been repeatedly amended to streamline enforcement of arbitration awards. The new proposed amendment aims to further reduce the burden of the Labour Court, since it would permit an employer to launch so-called interpleader proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court or Labour Court, to stop the attachment of its property. For employers, this is a positive development. For employees, especially those who are unrepresented, this is likely to result in substantial confusion.
Other Changes
Other significant amendments relate to financial penalties for unjustified postponements of CCMA matters and permitting employees to challenge the fairness of procedure in large scale retrenchments as part of their unfair dismissal claims. This change (and others) appear to have arisen in response to decisions of our Courts.
The proposed amendments to the LRA constitute, as usual, a mixed bag. Their main thrust appears to be aimed at incentivizing employment and streamlining dispute resolution functions.
Now is the time for employers (and employers organisations, in particular) to consider the amendments, work through their implications, and make representations where they consider the changes unworkable. Bargaining councils are also affected by the proposed amendments, and they will need to consider the effect of those amendments on its operations and funding.
Part 2 of our article, dealing with changes proposed by the Labour Law Amendment Bill will be published tomorrow.
