Understanding the 2025 Code of Good Practice on Dismissals
On the 4th of September 2025, South Africa’s labour framework took a decisive step forward with the implementation of the new Code of Good Practice: Dismissal. This Code replaces both Schedule 8 of the Labour Relations Act and the 1999 Code on Dismissals for Operational Requirements, marking the most significant overhaul in dismissal guidelines in over two decades.
The shift is not merely cosmetic, it reflects a philosophical change in how fairness is assessed, moving away from a “checklist compliance” mindset toward a context-driven, proportional approach that balances procedural integrity with workplace realities.
Let’s look at the before and after effects:
1. Flexibility for Small Employers
Before:
The old Code applied the same procedural expectations to all employers, regardless of size or resources.
Even micro-businesses were expected to conduct formal hearings and follow detailed steps, often creating a disproportionate administrative burden.
Now:
The 2025 Code explicitly recognises that small businesses operate differently.
For minor misconduct or performance issues, informal corrective discussions are acceptable, provided the employee understands the concern and has an opportunity to respond.
This is not a licence to bypass fairness — rather, it acknowledges that substance matters more than form.
Impact:
Small employers can resolve issues more quickly without fear of procedural technicalities invalidating a dismissal, as long as the process remains substantively fair.
2. Procedural Fairness Reframed
Before:
The emphasis was on formal hearings with strict adherence to procedural steps.
Even minor deviations could render a dismissal unfair, regardless of the underlying facts.
Now:
The Code shifts focus to meaningful engagement rather than rigid formality.
Employees must still be informed of allegations and given a reasonable chance to respond, but the format can vary depending on the circumstances.
Employers must be able to justify any procedural deviations if challenged.
Impact:
This change reduces the “form over substance” trap but places a higher burden on employers to document the fairness of their process.
3. Probationary Employees
Before:
Probation was recognised but lacked clear dismissal guidelines.
Employers often applied the same high threshold for dismissal as for permanent staff.
Now:
The Code explicitly allows a lower threshold for dismissing probationary employees for poor performance.
Employers must still provide guidance, training, and an opportunity to improve, but the expectation of tolerance is reduced during probation.
Impact:
Probation regains its intended role as a trial period, giving employers more agility in managing early-stage employment relationships.
4. Operational Requirements (Retrenchments) Integrated
Before:
Retrenchments were governed by a separate code, creating a fragmented framework.
Consultation requirements were clear but not fully harmonised with other dismissal types.
Now:
Operational requirement dismissals are fully integrated into the new Code.
They are classified as “no fault” dismissals, with a strong emphasis on exploring alternatives before termination.
Annexure A introduces a prescribed consultation format, ensuring consistency and transparency.
Impact:
Employers must treat retrenchments as part of the same fairness continuum as misconduct and incapacity dismissals, but with heightened consultation duties.
5. Consistency with Context
Before:
Consistency was interpreted narrowly — similar offences almost always required similar sanctions.
Now:
The Code recognises that context matters.
If misconduct makes continued employment intolerable, dismissal may be justified even if others received lesser sanctions in the past.
Employers must still explain any apparent inconsistency.
Impact:
This allows for more nuanced decision-making, but requires careful reasoning and record-keeping to avoid claims of bias.
6. Strike-Related Dismissals
Before:
Limited guidance on assessing dismissals during industrial action.
Now:
Employers must evaluate:
The legitimacy of the strike.
The impact on operations.
Whether the strike was provoked by unfair employer conduct.
Dismissal is not automatically justified by participation in an unprotected strike, proportionality is key.
Impact:
This change strengthens the principle that discipline during strikes must be measured and evidence based.
What you, as the employer need to action:
Policy Review: Update disciplinary and retrenchment procedures to reflect the new flexibility and integrated approach.
Manager Training: Equip line managers to conduct fair but proportionate processes without over-reliance on rigid hearings.
Documentation: Maintain clear records of the reasoning behind decisions, especially where procedures deviate from the traditional model.
Probation Management: Use probation actively, with structured feedback and clear performance benchmarks.
The 2025 Code is not about lowering standards, it’s about aligning fairness with reality. Employers who embrace its principles will find they have more room to act decisively, provided they can demonstrate genuine fairness and sound reasoning.
Given this new outlook, the only test now, would be to see how the Code will be actioned at the CCMA and Labour Courts.
Not yet a grok consulting client, but would like to know more about our service offering?
email us: info@grokon.biz
www.grokon.biz