CASE STUDY
PROGRAMME
Bachelor of Commerce Honours in Human Resource Management
MODULE
Labour Law
YEAR
One (1)
INTAKE
July 2026
MARKS
100
FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT 1
[100 MARKS]
Read the case study below and then answer ALL four questions.
Case Study:
When Labour Disputes Meet Public Crisis - The Johannesburg Water Bonus Dispute and Unprotected Strike of
February 2026
In early February 2026, tensions began to escalate within Johannesburg Water, the municipal entity responsible for
maintaining and distributing water across the City of Johannesburg. The organisation was already operating under
considerable pressure. The city was experiencing an ongoing water supply crisis caused by infrastructure strain, increased
demand and reduced bulk supply from Rand Water. In several parts of Johannesburg, residents had already been
experiencing prolonged water outages and inconsistent supply. Communities such as Midrand had gone without water for
several days, while other areas, including Melville and Selby, had endured weeks of irregular supply.
Against this already fragile backdrop, a labour dispute emerged that would further complicate the city’s efforts to stabilise its
water network. The conflict centred on performance bonuses paid to employees at Johannesburg Water and the manner in
which those bonuses had been calculated and distributed.
Employees had recently undergone performance reviews conducted with their line managers. These reviews formed part of
the organisation’s internal performance management system, which determines how bonuses are awarded to staff. During
the process, workers were informed of their scores and the corresponding bonuses they would receive. However, when the
bonuses were paid at the end of December 2025, employees discovered that the amounts they received were lower than
they had expected based on their earlier performance assessments.
The South African Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU), which represents many employees at Johannesburg Water, argued
that the discrepancy was the result of an unexplained reduction in the performance scores used to calculate bonuses.
According to the union, workers who had scored 95 percent or higher in their evaluations had their scores reduced by
approximately five percentage points before bonuses were calculated, resulting in significantly lower payments.
SAMWU regional chairperson Lebogang Ndawo explained the union’s understanding of what had occurred. According to
Ndawo, management had effectively altered the scoring system after the evaluations had already been completed. He
stated, “The employer has deducted five basis points from the scoring that members got … which meant they would then
receive a lesser amount than the money they’ve seen when they were doing performance reviews with their line managers.”
For workers who believed they had already earned their bonuses based on their performance assessments, the decision
felt both unfair and arbitrary. Ndawo emphasised that employees believed the bonuses should reflect the performance
targets they had already achieved: “So the basis is that they want that money to be paid for the performance they did as
they met that target. It is now felt that the employer is trying to mitigate or reduce costs by taking that money.”
Union representatives further claimed that the decision to moderate the performance scores had not been discussed with
employees or their representatives before it was implemented. According to Ndawo, discussions with management revealed
that the decision had originated from the organisation’s governing structures rather than from operational management. He
explained that the union had been informed that the decision had effectively been imposed from above. Ndawo stated that
management told the union it had been “a unilateral decision taken by the utility’s board” and that executive management
had been instructed to implement the moderation of performance scores.
For many employees, the situation was particularly frustrating because they had already completed consultations with their
supervisors during the review process and had been shown the performance scores that would determine their bonuses.
Ndawo emphasised this point when explaining the workers’ grievances: “This is despite the fact that already employees had
consultations with their line managers in terms of the review of their performances, then they were shown their scores,
which subsequently showed how much money they would get.”
As frustration among employees grew, workers began mobilising collectively to express their dissatisfaction. On 6 February
2026, employees affiliated with SAMWU initiated industrial action. Johannesburg Water soon confirmed that workers had
embarked on what it described as an unprotected strike.
The utility made it clear that the action had not followed the procedural requirements for protected strike action under South
African labour legislation. In a public statement, Johannesburg Water confirmed that “the action was undertaken without
following the legally required procedures and is therefore deemed unprotected in terms of applicable labour legislation.”
The organisation also emphasised that the union was aware of the legal implications of such action. It warned that workers
participating in the strike would not be paid for the time they were absent from work, stating that continued participation in
the strike would be “on a no-work-no-pay” basis.
Despite the employer’s classification of the action as an unprotected strike, union representatives initially disputed this
characterisation. SAMWU leaders insisted that workers were not attempting to shut down the city’s water system but were
rather expressing their grievances regarding the bonus dispute. Thobani Nkosi, the regional secretary of SAMWU, rejected
the suggestion that workers had engaged in a strike or go-slow. He stated, “It’s not a strike, it’s not a go-slow. Employees
went to their employer to submit their grievances and dissatisfaction on how the performance bonus was paid.”
Union leaders also emphasised that workers in essential services were aware of their responsibilities and that certain
functions continued to be performed to ensure that the city’s water supply would not be completely interrupted. From the
union’s perspective, the action was intended as a form of protest rather than a full shutdown of operations.
However, regardless of how it was characterised, the industrial action soon began to affect operations within the municipal
utility. Johannesburg Water reported that the dispute had slowed down repair work across the city, placing additional
pressure on an already strained water system. The entity acknowledged that the dispute had created operational
challenges during a period when infrastructure repairs and maintenance were urgently needed.
The organisation warned that the industrial action had placed “additional strain” on service delivery and operational
stability. Repair teams were unable to respond as quickly to faults within the water network, delaying efforts to restore
supply in several affected areas.
At the same time, the broader water system in Gauteng was experiencing severe pressure. Rand Water, the bulk water
supplier responsible for providing treated water to municipalities across the region, issued warnings that consumption levels
in Gauteng had risen significantly above sustainable levels. The utility indicated that this unusually high demand was
stretching infrastructure capacity and affecting the stability of the water supply network.
In a statement addressing the situation, Rand Water explained that persistent high water consumption was placing the
system under strain. The organisation stated that “persistently high water consumption in Gauteng, particularly the City of
Johannesburg and Tshwane,” was placing “significant strain on the overall water supply network.”
To stabilise the system, Rand Water announced that it would reduce supply to certain municipalities in order to restore water
availability in affected areas and prevent further network failures. These measures underscored the seriousness of the
broader water crisis that Johannesburg Water was attempting to manage.
Within the city’s distribution system, several reservoirs were already operating under severe pressure due to reduced
incoming supply and rising demand. Johannesburg Water reported that facilities such as Alexander Park Reservoir, Berea
Reservoir, Crown Gardens Reservoir and Crown Gardens Tower were among those experiencing constraints that resulted in
supply interruptions in surrounding areas.
The labour dispute therefore emerged at a particularly sensitive moment for the city’s water infrastructure. Politicians also
began to comment on the situation. Critics argued that any disruption to repair operations during an already severe water
crisis could worsen conditions for residents who were already facing extended outages.
In response to the disruption, Johannesburg Water implemented contingency measures to ensure that essential services
could continue. The organisation indicated that it would use external contractors where necessary in order to maintain basic
operations and minimise service delivery disruptions. These arrangements formed part of the utility’s standard business
continuity planning during operational crises.
While the dispute created considerable tension during the early days of February 2026, negotiations between
Johannesburg Water management and SAMWU leadership continued behind the scenes. Both parties recognised that a
prolonged dispute could further destabilise the city’s water supply system and intensify the hardships already being
experienced by residents.
After approximately two days of industrial action, discussions between management and union representatives produced an
agreement that allowed workers to return to work. Johannesburg Water later confirmed that the strike had come to an end
following engagements between the parties.
The municipal utility acknowledged the impact that the dispute had had on the city and issued a public apology to residents
and businesses affected by the disruption. A spokesperson for Johannesburg Water, Nombuso Mbuza, emphasised the
organisation’s commitment to restoring services as quickly as possible. She stated, “Johannesburg Water wishes to
apologise to residents, businesses, and all communities across the city for the inconvenience caused over the course of the
strike.”
Examiner Developed own Case Study
[Additional Reading Source :
·
Koko, M. (2026) Joburg Water strike ends: Employees return to work. Eyewitness News (EWN), 10 February 2026
[online]. Available from https://www.ewn.co.za/2026/02/10/joburg-water-strike-ends-employees-return-to-work (Accessed
12 March 2026).
· Mashishi, N. (2026) Joburg Water confirms unprotected strike as Day Zero crisis deepens. Daily Maverick, 9 February
2026 [online]. Available from https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2026-02-09-joburgs-water-woes-deepen-as-workersdispute-bonus-payments/ (Accessed 12 March 2026).
·
Sidimba, L. (2026) Johannesburg Water employees strike over bonus disputes amid water supply crisis. IOL, 9
February 2026.[online]. Available from https://iol.co.za/news/2026-02-10-johannesburg-water-employees-strike-overbonus-disputes-amid-water-supply-crisis/ (Accessed 12 March 2026).]
Question 1
(25 Marks)
Assess how the constitutional right to fair labour practices influenced the employment relationship between Johannesburg
Water and its employees in the bonus dispute.
Question 2
(25 Marks)
Critically discuss whether the reduction of employees’ performance scores and resulting bonuses could raise concerns
regarding remuneration and fair employment conditions under the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.
Question 3
(25 Marks)
Analyse whether the industrial action by Johannesburg Water employees constituted an unprotected strike under the
Labour Relations Act.
Question 4
(25 Marks)
Examine how formal labour dispute resolution mechanisms could have been utilised to address the Johannesburg Water
bonus dispute before employees resorted to industrial action.
END OF ASSESSMENT