Labour Court Decision Establishes 90 Day Cut-Off For Unfair Labour Claims To Prevent Endless Disputes

The case, Nehawu on behalf of Makhubele and others v Ramalatso NO and others, centered on a classic gripe: equal pay for equal work. Union members claimed they were earning less than colleagues doing the same jobs, simply because they were slotted into different pay grades. This salary gap, they argued, amounted to an unfair labour practice under the Labour Relations Act.

Represented by Nehawu, the employees didn't file their complaint until 2019, even though they'd known about the disparity since 2016. Their defense? It was a "continuing wrong" — the inequality replayed every payday, so the 90-day clock should reset each month until fixed.

Both the CCMA and the Labour Court shot this down. The court clarified that an unfair labour practice, as defined in section 186(2) of the Act, happens at a single moment: when the problematic action — like setting unequal salaries — takes place. Sure, the fallout might linger, but that doesn't restart the timer.

In a pointed remark, the court declared:

Bottom line? The union's referral was way too late.

Of course, if you're past the deadline, all isn't lost — you can apply for condonation. But you'll need to show "good cause," including a solid explanation for the delay and strong odds of winning on the merits. The CCMA has made clear that even a great excuse won't save a hopeless case. Here, Nehawu couldn't clear that bar.

The big lesson for employees and unions?

Don't delay. Spot an unfair practice? Refer it fast to keep your claim alive. For employers, this reinforces a strong shield: lateness can block disputes before they even hit the courtroom floor. Ongoing effects won't turn a one-off act into an eternal grievance.

In the world of labour rights, timing isn't everything — it's the only thing. Miss the window, and your case might never see the light of day.