Is it the end for labour brokers?

“For a few years now I’ve been using cleaning and gardening workers provided by a labour broker. It has worked well for me as the labour broker has been responsible to manage the workers. I’m concerned though about recent media reports that appear to imply that these workers will now be deemed to be my employees. Is this true?”

You are correct in that a recent Constitutional Court judgment has confirmed that any employee earning below R205 433.30 annually and who has been placed by a Labour Broker for a period of more than three months with a client may be deemed to be an employee of such client.
 
This decision comes after a number of years of widespread calls against labour broking, particularly from trade unions. The history of this debate goes back to 2014 when the Labour Relations Act (“LRA”) was amended to introduce protection for employees in precarious employment positions and earning low wages. A new section 198A was introduced to align the LRA and the right to fair labour practices in section 23 of the Constitution. 

The Constitutional Court held that the labour broker is merely a third party that delivers the employee to a client. The employee does not contribute to the business of the labour broker except as a commodity. The Constitutional Court also concluded that the language used in section 198A supports a ‘sole employer’ interpretation, meaning that employees who have been placed by a labour broker for a period of more than three months and earn below the statutory threshold will be deemed to be permanent employees of the labour broker’s client. 

This judgment will have a dramatic impact on the labour broking business and will also affect many clients that utilise labour broking employees as many of these employees may now be deemed to be employees of the client and entitled to rights as an employee. It would accordingly be prudent to consult with your attorney or a labour specialist to assist you to correctly deal with these labour broker workers in light of this important judgment.

September 10, 2018
When agreements have limits

When agreements have limits

Maintenance agreements in South Africa have become increasingly popular between parents of minor children as a means of regulating their respective maintenance obligations outside of court. These agreements are a useful tool, allowing parents to exercise a degree of contractual freedom. However, their provisions remain subject to statutory regulation and the overarching principle that contracts must conform to public policy.

Fee or tax? The court decides

Fee or tax? The court decides

With effect from 1 July 2025, the City of Cape Town introduced three new charges on residential rate bills. These charges were challenged by the South African Property Owners’ Association (SAPOA) and AfriForum, who argued that they were unlawful and improperly calculated. The dispute culminated in court applications seeking declaratory orders that the charges were invalid because they were inconsistent with the Constitution, national legislation, and the City’s own By-Laws.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest