An analysis of Edcon v Steenkamp with reference to its effect on the “De Beers” principle

Abstract

In this article, the author deals predominantly with the judgment handed down in Edcon v Steenkamp.1 Here the applicant described its application as “a constitutional challenge”2 to section 189A of the Labour Relations Act,3 a primary object of the Act being to give effect to and regulate the fundamental rights conferred by section 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.4 It is also considered in what manner the Edcon judgment differs from the judgment in De Beers Group Services (Pty) Ltd v NUM.