Labor Court decision MAN Mining Technical Services (Pty) Ltd v Eagle Creek Investments 278 (Pty) Ltd and Others This is a timely and employer-affirming reminder of what Section 197 of the Labor Relations Act is – and, equally importantly, what it is not.
For employers working in outsourced, contract or service-based environments, the decision draws a clear line between employee protections and commercial rights.
change in contractor
The case arose when a mining services contractor lost its service level agreement at a mine and was replaced by a new contractor. The incoming contractor concluded employment contracts with 151 employees previously employed by the outgoing service provider.
The outgoing employer accepted that Section 197 did not apply, but still approached the Labor Court on an urgent basis, seeking to cancel the new contracts of the employees and declare them its employees. The claim was formulated in the language of section 197, but its essence was clearly commercial. The court had some difficulty in rejecting the application.
Its reasoning offers several practical lessons for employers.
LAC confirms that contract workers cannot even get their cake and employee rights
takeaway
First, the judgment firmly establishes section 197 in its protective purpose. Section 197 exists to protect employees when a business is transferred as a going concern. It does not grant employers a proprietary right to maintain the workforce, nor does it give a service provider the right to veto employment contracts concluded between employees and a third party. Employers should be relieved by the Court's clear rejection of any attempt to weaponize Section 197 as a commercial restriction.
Second, the Court confirmed that status matters. An employer cannot use labor-law measures to assert its business interests. Where employees have chosen to accept employment with a new employer and do not themselves challenge that relationship, a former employer does not have locus standi To do so on their behalf. The fact that the workforce may be an integral part of the outgoing contractor's business does not transform a contractual grievance into a labor dispute.
Third, the decision draws a clear distinction between labor law and commercial law. Complaints for termination of service contracts, loss of intellectual capital, or damage to reputation come directly to civil courts. Employers who attempt to restructure contractual disputes as section 197 disputes risk summary dismissal and adverse costs orders. The Labor Court will not consider claims that fall outside the architecture of the LRA, simply because they are formulated in labour-law terminology.
lack of promptness
The court was also not impressed by the applicant's reliance on urgency. While Section 197 disputes are often urgent where employee safety is at stake, urgency cannot be created to protect a business position. Where employees remain employed and employment rights are not threatened, the justification for immediate intervention is lost.
Contracted: Who is obligated to pay salaries to employees?
cost order
Ultimately, the cost order is telling. While the court stayed the punitive costs order, it made it clear that misusing instant roll and invoking section 197 without legal basis warrants condemnation. For employers receiving such applications, this is a welcome sign that the courts will protect the integrity of labor-law processes.
conclusion
The broader conclusion is simple but important. Employees are not property, and workforces are not transferable property. Section 197 protects continuity of employment, not continuity of business profits.
Employers who respect that limit – and who keep their commercial disputes where they belong – will avoid costly and ultimately futile litigation. For employers operating in competitive, outsourced environments, the message is crystal clear: losing a contract does not mean losing legal certainty, and labor law will not be stretched to protect business expectations.