LATEST
MRL3702
EXAM PACK
A+ CONTENT
VARSITY HUB SA
EMPOWERING STUDENTS IN THEIR
STUDIES
, UNISA MRL3702 Labour Law — Master 8-Exam Pack
UNISA MRL3702 LABOUR LAW
Master Exam Pack (800 Marks Total) — Questions & Model IPAC
Answers
EXAM 1: May/June 2026 Examination Paper (100
Marks)
QUESTION 1.1 [25 MARKS]
Sipho worked as an executive manager at Apex Logistics. The company's employment policy
sets the normal retirement age at 60. However, Sipho turned 60 in 2024 and continued
working with the explicit oral agreement of the managing director. In May 2026, following a
change in senior executive management, the company issued Sipho with a letter terminating
his service immediately on the basis that he had reached the retirement age of 60. Advise
Sipho on whether his termination constitutes a automatically unfair dismissal under Section
187(1)(f) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 or a fair dismissal based on operational
requirements, referring to relevant case law.
ISSUE Whether terminating an employee who worked past the agreed normal
retirement age constitutes an automatically unfair dismissal based on age
discrimination under s 187(1)(f) of the LRA 66 of 1995.
RULE & Section 187(1)(f) of the LRA renders a dismissal automatically unfair if the
AUTHORITIES reason is age discrimination. Section 187(2)(b) provides a statutory defense if
the employee has reached the normal or agreed retirement age. However, as
established in Cashbuild (Pty) Ltd v Mamogale (2014) and Schweitzer v Waco
Page 1
MRL3702
EXAM PACK
A+ CONTENT
VARSITY HUB SA
EMPOWERING STUDENTS IN THEIR
STUDIES
, UNISA MRL3702 Labour Law — Master 8-Exam Pack
UNISA MRL3702 LABOUR LAW
Master Exam Pack (800 Marks Total) — Questions & Model IPAC
Answers
EXAM 1: May/June 2026 Examination Paper (100
Marks)
QUESTION 1.1 [25 MARKS]
Sipho worked as an executive manager at Apex Logistics. The company's employment policy
sets the normal retirement age at 60. However, Sipho turned 60 in 2024 and continued
working with the explicit oral agreement of the managing director. In May 2026, following a
change in senior executive management, the company issued Sipho with a letter terminating
his service immediately on the basis that he had reached the retirement age of 60. Advise
Sipho on whether his termination constitutes a automatically unfair dismissal under Section
187(1)(f) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 or a fair dismissal based on operational
requirements, referring to relevant case law.
ISSUE Whether terminating an employee who worked past the agreed normal
retirement age constitutes an automatically unfair dismissal based on age
discrimination under s 187(1)(f) of the LRA 66 of 1995.
RULE & Section 187(1)(f) of the LRA renders a dismissal automatically unfair if the
AUTHORITIES reason is age discrimination. Section 187(2)(b) provides a statutory defense if
the employee has reached the normal or agreed retirement age. However, as
established in Cashbuild (Pty) Ltd v Mamogale (2014) and Schweitzer v Waco
Page 1
