In the matter Moropene v Competition Commission of South Africa and Others (JA129/2022) [2024] ZALAC 14 the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) had to consider a case which revolved around whether a settlement agreement reached at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) covered all claims arising from a termination.
The employee had worked for the employer since 2005, steadily rising through its ranks to the position of Principal Investigator in its Cartels Division.
In late 2019, the employer discovered that the employee had previous criminal convictions—expunged by that time—which he had failed to disclose when applying for two senior posts.
The employer viewed this as a misrepresentation and issued a letter asking him to explain why he should not be dismissed.
Despite his attorneys responding that the convictions had been lawfully expunged under the Criminal Procedure Act, the employer proceeded to dismiss him with immediate effect on 29 November 2019.
The employee challenged this dismissal at the CCMA, claiming it was both unfair and unlawful.
In March 2020, settlement discussions took place during arbitration, with the employee offering to accept the equivalent of eight months’ salary in compensation.
The employer accepted this offer on the understanding that it would resolve all claims arising from the dismissal, including any contractual breaches.
This interpretation was confirmed in correspondence by the employer’s attorney, who recorded a phone discussion with the employee’s attorney.
The employee’s attorney did not immediately refute this understanding and subsequently enquired only about the logistics of payment.
However, days later, the employee’s attorney stated that the eight-month settlement only covered the unfair dismissal claim, and that the employee intended to pursue further legal action for breach of his employment contract.
He launched motion proceedings in the Labour Court (LC), seeking either reinstatement or R3.5 million in damages.
The LC found that the original settlement had not definitively resolved all claims, but still dismissed his application on the basis that the employer had discretion whether to hold a formal disciplinary hearing.
Both parties appealed—the employer on the point of full and final settlement, and the employee on the LC’s dismissal of his contractual claim.
The LAC focused on whether a binding agreement was concluded that encompassed all claims.
It found that the written correspondence, especially the employer’s letter of 17 March 2020, made it clear that the settlement was in full and final resolution of all disputes.
Crucially, the employee had not directly challenged that version of events until much later, and then only vaguely.
The Court emphasised that mere denials were insufficient to create a genuine dispute of fact.
The LAC confirmed that the parties had entered into a valid, final settlement covering all claims related to the dismissal, including those based on alleged procedural rights.
It also ruled that the LC had erred in concluding otherwise and upheld the employer’s cross-appeal.
><In this weekly column, labour lawyer Jonathan Goldberg, chair of Global Business Solutions, looks at various aspects of labour law