Labour Court Slams ‘Reapply for Your Own Job’ Retrenchments, Awards Compensation to Six Workers

For many South Africans, retrenchment already feels like the worst-case scenario. But imagine being told to apply for your own job while facing dismissal. That is exactly what happened to six employees, and now the Labour Court has stepped in with a firm response.

Court Finds Retrenchments Were Not Justified

In a recent ruling in Johannesburg, the Labour Court found that a group of workers retrenched by healthcare NGO Right to Care NPC were dismissed unfairly. Judge Robert Makhura concluded that the organisation failed to properly justify why the jobs had to go in the first place.

The retrenchments were linked to a reduction in donor funding for the APACE programme, which focuses on HIV and tuberculosis care. Right to Care argued that a funding cut from the United States Agency for International Development forced its hand.

However, the court was not convinced. Evidence showed that the organisation still had hundreds of vacant roles across its broader operations. This suggested that the funding shortfall in one programme did not necessarily mean the organisation as a whole was under financial pressure.

The Problem With “Reapplying” For Jobs

At the heart of the case was a controversial process where employees were told to reapply for positions, including ones they had already been doing.

The court was sharply critical of this approach. It found that forcing workers to compete for their own roles was not a fair alternative to retrenchment. Instead, it resembled a standard hiring process that ignored the rights of employees already in the system.

Judge Makhura made it clear that this kind of “re-competition” cannot be used as a shortcut to avoid proper retrenchment procedures. The process also lacked transparency, with no clear explanation of how candidates were assessed or selected.

Consultation Process Fell Short

South African labour law places strong emphasis on consultation during retrenchments. Employers are expected to meaningfully engage with staff and explore ways to avoid job losses.

In this case, the court found that this did not happen.

Employees had suggested several alternatives, including cost-cutting measures, voluntary retrenchments, and applying the widely used “last in, first out” principle. But these proposals were not properly considered.

The judgment concluded that the decision to retrench appeared to have been made before consultations even began. That meant the process was little more than a formality, rather than a genuine attempt to find solutions.

Missed Opportunities To Save Jobs

Another key issue was the organisation’s failure to redeploy affected workers.

With numerous vacancies available, the court found that Right to Care did not take reasonable steps to place employees into other roles or provide training where needed. Instead, workers were simply told to apply for open positions without any structured support.

The court also pointed to inconsistent hiring decisions during the same period. In one instance, a former employee was brought back into a role ahead of retrenched staff. In another, a fixed-term worker was chosen over a permanent employee facing dismissal.

These decisions raised further questions about fairness and consistency.

What The Ruling Means For Workers

In the end, the court ordered that each of the six employees be paid compensation equal to six months’ salary. While the workers had pushed for the maximum possible payout, the court described the award as fair under the circumstances.

The ruling sends a clear message in the South African context, where retrenchments remain a reality across many sectors. Employers cannot bypass proper procedures or shift the burden onto employees by making them fight for their own jobs.

For workers, it reinforces an important principle. Retrenchment must be a last resort, not a process driven by convenience.