2024 was filled with a flurry of new proposed acts, regulations, and landmark judgments, so, understandably, some significant decisions may have gone unnoticed. One such case is the recent judgment in Coca-Cola Beverages Africa (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission and Another 2024 (4) SA 391 (CC) (17 April 2024), wherein the Constitutional Court examined whether retrenchments were merger-specific or the consequence of operational requirements.

The dispute originated from a larger merger in 2016, which combined several South African companies into the single entity Coca-Cola Beverages South Africa (Pty) Ltd (Coca-Cola). The merger was approved by the Competition Commission under the Competition Act 89 of 1998, subject to specific conditions. These conditions included maintaining the workforce at pre-merger levels for three years and limiting retrenchments of employees from the merging parties unless unrelated to the merger. Following the merger, Coca-Cola faced significant economic challenges, including increased input costs, competitors gaining market share, and the impact of a "sugar tax" imposed in South Africa. In 2019, Coca-Cola notified the Competition Commission that retrenchments were possible, leading to 368 employees being involuntarily retrenched and a labour dispute being declared. 

The Competition Commission issued a Notice of Apparent Breach alleging that Coca-Cola had violated one of the merger criteria. Coca-Cola then approached the Competition Tribunal, which found that the company had generally complied with the merger conditions and that the retrenchments were not merger-specific. However, the Competition Appeal Court reversed this ruling after an appeal, concluding that Coca-Cola had violated the merger terms.

Uncertainty in economic regulation arose when the Competition Tribunal and the Competition Appeal Court, relying on the case of BB Investment Company (Pty) Ltd v Adcock Ingram Holdings (Pty) Ltd [2014] 2 CDLR 451 (CT), reached different conclusions on the test for causal nexus (direct connection or relationship). This uncertainty necessitated the Constitutional Court to provide a definitive ruling and address this topic of contention.

Determining whether Coca-Cola's retrenchments were due to merger-specific factors or operational needs was the primary point of debate. While merger-related retrenchments arise when job reductions are directly linked to the merger process, often as a result of role duplication following the merger, operational requirements involve retrenchments intended to improve efficiency or respond to unfavourable economic conditions.

The Constitutional Court found that Coca-Cola had made a compelling argument that operational requirements were the reason for the retrenchments. To lessen the effects of a difficult economic climate, the sugar tax, and sharp rises in the price of raw materials, the Court observed that Coca-Cola had laid off workers and subsequently employed or recruited new employees in the same positions but at lower salaries. The idea that businesses are dynamic organisations and that not all post-merger changes are directly related to the merger was upheld by the Constitutional Court. This method emphasises that changes that would have happened regardless of the merger can arise after it has occurred and are, therefore, not merger-specific. 

The ruling upholds the idea that, if employers can present justifiable justifications for lowering labour expenses to maintain company operations, companies have the right to implement restructuring procedures that may involve retrenchments and the rehiring or employment of new staff at reduced salaries, despite merger conditions that may place restrictions on such procedures.


Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and is not necessarily that of the firm. The content is provided for information only and should not be seen as an exact or complete exposition of the law. Accordingly, no reliance should be placed on the content for any reason whatsoever and no action should be taken on the basis thereof unless its application and accuracy has been confirmed by a legal advisor. The firm and author(s) cannot be held liable for any prejudice or damage resulting from action taken on the basis of this content without further written confirmation by the author(s).