Don’t Assume It’s Over Just Because One Case Is Settled
A recent court case reminds us that when it comes to CCMA settlements, assumptions are dangerous—and clarity is critical.
In Zwane v Nqatshana and Others, the Labour Court drew a firm boundary around what a settlement agreement does—and does not—cover. It’s a cautionary tale for employers who believe that resolving one dispute closes the book for everyone involved.
The Case in Context
The employer, Ms Nqatshana, entered into a settlement agreement with one of several employees following a workplace dispute.
The terms were clear: the agreement resolved all claims between the named parties.
But another employee, Mr Zwane—who was not a party to the agreement—later approached the CCMA with a related claim arising from the same set of circumstances.
The employer objected, arguing that the original settlement resolved the entire matter, including Zwane’s involvement.
The court disagreed.
The Labour Court’s Finding
The court confirmed a foundational legal principle: a settlement agreement is only binding on the parties named in it. Unless an agreement is explicitly extended to cover others—or unless the others have agreed to be bound—it doesn’t apply to them.
In this case:
- Zwane did not sign the agreement
- His name did not appear in the list of parties
- There was no evidence that he had authorised anyone to settle on his behalf
As a result, he retained the right to refer his dispute to the CCMA.
The Real-World Risk for Employers
This case cuts to the heart of a common mistake: thinking one settlement equals full closure.
In workplaces where multiple employees are involved in a conflict, misconduct claim, or restructuring process, it’s easy to assume that reaching agreement with one person resolves the issue broadly.
It doesn’t.
If other affected employees aren’t expressly included—or don’t sign—the door remains wide open for further disputes, referrals, or even legal action.
How Employers Can Protect Themselves
To avoid unintended fallout from partial settlements, (SA)UEO recommends the following steps:
- Name All Parties Clearly
Every employee meant to be bound by a settlement agreement must be explicitly named. Never rely on collective references like “the group” or “all affected parties.” - Secure Written Consent from Each Party
If employees are being represented, ensure written mandates are in place and attached to the agreement. - Clarify the Scope of the Settlement
Spell out exactly what is being resolved—and what isn’t. This includes timeframes, claims, and any disciplinary or employment implications. - Treat Each Matter Individually Where Needed
It may feel administratively heavy, but individual settlement agreements provide stronger legal closure than a “one-size-fits-all” version.
Final Word from (SA)UEO
“This case is a reminder that legal shortcuts can become costly detours,” says André Fourie, Assistant General Secretary.
(SA)UEO continues to support business members in drafting clear, compliant, and watertight agreements that stand up to scrutiny. If you need help reviewing your current settlement practices, reach out to your organiser or contact us at info@saueo.co.za.
