Solidarity has scored a significant legal win after the Labour Court found that Heineken Beverages (Pty) Ltd unfairly discriminated against employees who took part in a protected strike by withholding their short-term incentive bonuses.
The ruling, delivered on Monday 8 December 2025 by Judge Andre Lagrange, marks an important moment for organised labour, according to NovaNews.
The dispute dates back to February 2023, when Solidarity members embarked on a protected strike in pursuit of bargaining rights within the company.
The court concluded that although the strike was lawful, Heineken penalised those who participated by excluding them from the annual incentive scheme.
This conduct, the court held, breached the Labour Relations Act as it amounted to victimisation of workers exercising a constitutional right.
This latest judgment adds to a series of labour disputes involving the beverages group. Following its 2024 merger with Distell, employees approached the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration early that year to challenge their employment status and seek permanent posts within the newly combined entity.
In the current case, Heineken now has 60 days to calculate and pay the outstanding bonuses owed to Solidarity members who qualified for them. The value of the payouts remains uncertain.
The company had argued that its incentive policy allowed for the forfeiture of bonuses during industrial action and said it had advised workers of the no-work, no-pay principle before the strike.
Evidence presented in court showed that when bonuses were paid in June 2023, only non-striking employees received their incentives.
Those who had picketed were excluded, despite having met all other performance requirements. The court found that disqualifying workers solely because they exercised their right to strike amounted to unlawful discrimination.
Solidarity maintained throughout the proceedings that the right to strike is a core constitutional protection and that the incentives were withheld for no other reason than participation in lawful industrial action.
Heineken countered that the scheme was discretionary rather than guaranteed and that management acted within its rights to maintain stability.
The ruling now compels the company to compensate the affected workers, setting a notable precedent for future disputes involving incentive schemes and industrial action.
Facebook Comments