South African Employers Face Scrutiny Over Alleged Unfair Dismissals Of Migrant Workers

Labour organisations have accused some employers of exploiting the current anti-illegal migrant climate to dismiss migrant workers, raising questions about whether businesses are complying with labour laws when terminating employment.

The Simunye Workers Forum (SWF) says it has documented several cases across Gauteng in recent weeks in which migrant workers have allegedly been dismissed, retrenched, or prevented from returning to work following the protests.

"It has become clear to us over the past few weeks that employers are seizing upon the current mobilisations to carry out unfair dismissals and unlawful pseudo-retrenchments," the organisation said.

Among the cases highlighted is that of approximately 90 Malawian workers employed at Harvest Fresh Farms in Meyerton.

According to SWF, the workers, many of whom had been employed for between five and 15 years, were informed on June 18 that a Department of Home Affairs verification had found they were not legally authorised to work in South Africa. The organisation alleges they were initially offered R3,000, which included their final salary and severance pay, before the amount was increased to R5,000, and that workers signed mutual separation agreements under pressure.

Responding to questions from this publication, Harvest Fresh Farms Human Resources Manager Machine Hlongwane confirmed that about 90 foreign national employees were affected but denied they had been dismissed.

Hlongwane said the company began verifying employees' work permits in November 2025, months before the recent protests, and that an independent verification process found several permits and supporting documents to be fraudulent.

"The company thereafter engaged with the affected employees, explained the verification results and consulted with them regarding the implications. Following this process, the parties mutually agreed to conclude the employment relationship through Mutual Separation Agreements," Hlongwane said.

He rejected suggestions that the process was influenced by anti-migrant protests, saying the company remained committed to lawful labour practices and treating all employees with dignity and respect.

However, migrant rights advocates say immigration status does not remove workers' protection under South African labour law.

Head of Advocacy at the Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town, James Chapman, said employers cannot use anti-illegal migrant protests or public pressure as justification for bypassing labour legislation.

"While employers are prohibited from knowingly employing undocumented foreign nationals, that does not exempt them from their obligations under labour law," Chapman said.

"If an employer has employed someone for years despite knowing, or having reason to know, of their immigration status, they cannot simply rely on that status to avoid following fair dismissal procedures when public pressure mounts."

He said undocumented workers remain protected against unfair dismissal and may still refer disputes to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration.

SWF says the Harvest Fresh matter is not isolated.

The organisation alleges that at a prominent plastics manufacturer in Gauteng, about 23 migrant workers were prevented from returning to work after the employer cited security concerns linked to anti-migrant protests.

In another case involving a plastics manufacturer in Alrode, SWF claims 15 young Malawian workers were left stranded after the business allegedly closed without paying them following its relocation from Durban.

At a Gauteng farming operation, the organisation says 17 migrant workers from Malawi, Lesotho, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe were instructed not to report for duty until "the March and March issue slows down", leaving them without an income.

Another case involves Guard Master/Wire Ventures, where SWF alleges eight migrant workers were retrenched because they lacked valid work permits despite having worked for the company since 2019.

The organisation argues that only undocumented migrant workers were selected and alleges the retrenchments reflect employers taking advantage of the current anti-migrant climate.

SWF further alleges workers had previously complained that a manager threatened to dismiss three employees every week, that another manager carried a firearm on the factory floor, and that employees were not receiving the correct Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council wage rates.

In response, Wire Ventures denied the retrenchments were based on nationality, saying the affected employees had repeatedly failed to provide valid work authorisation despite being requested to do so over an extended period.

The company said it initiated a formal consultation process in terms of Section 189 of the Labour Relations Act, considered alternatives to retrenchment, and paid affected employees all amounts due, including notice pay, accrued leave, and severance pay where applicable.

It also said workers had been offered re-employment should they obtain valid work permits within four months.

The company denied allegations that managers threatened workers with dismissal, saying it had no record of such incidents.

It also denied claims that a firearm had been used to intimidate employees, confirming only that a manager lawfully carried a licensed firearm for personal protection. After workers expressed concern, the firearm was required to be locked away during working hours and was no longer carried on the factory floor.

Regarding wage disputes, Wire Ventures said it joined the Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council in June and was working with the council to ensure employees were correctly classified and remunerated.

The company denied deliberately underpaying workers and said it remained committed to complying with labour legislation.

Wire Ventures also disputed SWF's standing, saying it was instead engaging with the Casual Workers Advice Office over the concerns raised.

The other employers referred to in this article did not respond to requests for comment by publication.

The article will be updated should their responses be received.

lilita.gcwabe@inl.co.za