Fourteen employees of the City of Cape Town, represented by the IMATU trade union, failed in their attempt to appeal the decision that denied them overtime pay.
The Labour Court in Cape Town dismissed their application for leave to appeal on October 8, after a ruling dated August 7, 2026, established that the workers could not prove a contractual right to receive payment for overtime hours.
These employees, who work in the departments of Traffic Services, Municipal Police, and City Events Management, were challenging the City's decision to cease paying overtime since January 2024, despite still being required to work beyond the standard 40-hour work week.
During the initial hearing, two employees stated that this decision had led to a reduction in their income by 12%–15%.
Working Overtime Without Pay
Keith Moses, who worked in Traffic Services during the dispute, told the court that he had received overtime payments for 24 years working for the City. He noted that the loss of overtime pay negatively affected his earnings, family obligations, social life, and overall well-being.
Another employee, Shukard-Ali Ravut, who works in Events Management, testified that his duties required him to attend events outside of normal working hours, including evenings, weekends, and public holidays. These events included Rugby Sevens, Cape Town Cycle Tour, Two Oceans Marathon, and major state memorial services.
Ravut informed the court that he could work between 20 and 70 overtime hours per month, but since January 2024, he had only been paid his regular salary. The City argued that overtime payment rules are governed by its employment policies, which can be changed, and that these changes do not violate employee contracts.
Judge T. Gandidze rejected the employees' contractual claim in August because they could not establish a right to paid overtime hours under their employment contracts. Subsequently, the workers applied for leave to appeal.
Judge Upholds Workers' Claims
Rejecting the final application, Gandidze ruled that there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different decision. However, the judge declined to order IMATU to reimburse the City's legal costs. Gandidze noted: 'The claim was not frivolous.' He added: 'IMATU members are rightly dissatisfied with the City's insistence that they work overtime without compensation, when they were paid for overtime for several years.'
The judge concluded that the suit failed because the contractual clause the workers relied upon turned out to be non-existent. The court denied the leave to appeal and made no ruling on costs.