A labour court judge granted an urgent interim interdict to prevent the University of Cape Town (UCT) from continuing with a Section 189 Labour Relations Act (LRA) consultation process that could potentially lead to an employee’s retrenchment or demotion.
This decision emerged after UCT employee Fahim Docrat brought an urgent application in the Cape Town Labour Court for an interim order interdicting and restraining UCT from continuing with the process pending the finalisation of trial proceedings currently before the court.
According to the court papers, the trial proceedings relate to alleged unfair labour practices involving an occupational detriment, in contravention of the Protected Disclosures Act (PDA) on account of the employee having made a protected disclosure as defined in that PDA.
UCT opposes the application.
According to the court papers, Docrat received the initial Section 189 letter on May 8, 2026, four days before the trial proceedings.
The letter resulted from restructuring within the Development and the Alumni Department, where Docrat works. Under this restructuring, his position of senior manager for corporate, legacy, and individual giving (Grade 12) no longer exists, it is replaced by the position of philanthropy manager (Grade 11).
The purpose of the Section 189 LRA consultation process was to try to get Docrat to agree to accept the philanthropy manager position or face retrenchment.
On May 12, 2026, Docrat wrote to UCT stating that this would be his first Section 189 LRA consultation and that it was not a continuation, as stated in the notice.
He also recorded that the trial proceedings would address his disputes, including the intended demotion, and that the Section 189 LRA process must be suspended for that reason.
According to the court papers, he did not receive a response from UCT.
The trial proceedings commenced on May 13 and 14, 2026, and are part-heard, awaiting new set-down dates.
On May 19, 2026, Docrat received an e-mail from UCT advising that the Section 189 process would commence the next day.
On the same day, Docrat wrote to UCT stating that it had not addressed his contention that the issue was under consideration in the trial proceedings. He also sought a postponement due to his attorney’s unavailability at such short notice.
UCT responded to Docrat, stating that the trial proceedings were unrelated to the Section 189 process, which was ongoing; that he was “acting unreasonably”; and that the consultation would be postponed to May 22, 2026.
Docrat responded, reiterating his concerns about the consultation and objecting to the facilitator of the process.
UCT replied that Docrat could submit his contentions at the consultation on May 22 and that although a new Section 189 LRA notice had been issued, the word “continuation” made no difference.
According to the court papers, Docrat informed his attorney that the consultation would continue. He was advised to attend the consultation alone and state his objections, as his attorney could not consult with him before May 27.
At the consultation meeting, Docrat objected to the facilitator, whom he alleged was biased, and submitted that the consultation process could not proceed given the trial proceedings.
The facilitator ruled that UCT should provide the reasons for the proposed restructuring by June 1 and Docrat should respond by June 8.
On May 27, Docrat consulted with his attorney, and they agreed that a letter would be sent to UCT requesting that the consultation process be stayed and that a response be provided by May 28.
The letter was sent, but UCT did not respond by the set deadline.
Docrat met his attorney on May 29 to prepare the urgent papers.
During the consultation, Docrat received correspondence from UCT stating that the section 189 LRA consultation scheduled for June 1 would be postponed to June 8 to allow the parties to explore settlement.
Docrat’s attorney wrote to UCT seeking an undertaking that the consultation process would not proceed on June 8.
There was no response, and the current application was served and filed on June 2.
According to the court papers, at the hearing on June 11, the court ordered UCT not to proceed with the section 189 LRA process pending the outcome of this application.
UCT submitted that the application, brought on seven days’ notice and seeking final relief, was brought on an extremely urgent basis, and that Docrat failed to demonstrate urgency.
UCT submitted that, in June 2025, in a separate case, Judge Phehane held that Docrat knew as far back as July/August 2024 that his position would be downgraded.
It was also submitted that Judge Phehane held that Docrat failed to make out a case that he would not obtain substantial redress in due course if his application was not heard on an urgent basis, that the application was frivolous, meritless, and hopeless, and that it caused a storm in a teacup by, inter alia, averring a string of protected disclosures.
UCT also contended that Docrat could obtain substantial redress in due course, given his dispute at the CCMA, where he was challenging the demotion.
In handing down judgment, Judge Tapiwa Gandidze said Judge Phehane’s judgment related to a different application from the one currently before the court, therefore, the findings made in that case apply to that application.
“This is a different application which must be decided on its own facts.”
Judge Gandidze said Docrat sought interim relief, not final relief as submitted by UCT.
She said an applicant for interim relief must demonstrate a prima facie right, though open to some doubt, a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm if the interdict was not granted, that the balance of convenience favoured granting interim relief rather than refusing it, and that no other satisfactory remedy was available.
Judge Gandidze said all that Docrat sought at this stage was interim relief pending the trial proceedings.
“He has demonstrated a prima facie right to that relief, even if that right is open to doubt, because the trial court must still determine whether Docrat was subjected to occupational detriments, including the demotion, for making protected disclosures.
“Therefore, the Section 189 LRA process, which might result in the implementation of the demotion before the trial proceedings have been finalised, must be interdicted until those proceedings have been finalised,” she said.
