Heineken Beverages reviews court ruling on unlawful withholding of bonuses from striking workers

SOUTH AFRICA – HEINEKEN Beverages has announced that it is reviewing a Labour Court judgment that found the company acted unlawfully when it withheld short-term incentive (STI) bonuses from 39 Solidarity members who took part in a protected strike in February 2023.  

The company said it is assessing the ruling and will determine its next steps after examining the court’s findings. 

The judgment, delivered by Judge R. Lagrange, concluded that HEINEKEN violated sections 5(1) and 5(2)(c)(vi) of the Labour Relations Act (LRA), which prohibit employers from discriminating against or disadvantaging workers for exercising rights granted under the Act—including the constitutional right to strike. 

In its response, the company stated that its decision at the time was shaped by collective bargaining dynamics and by its long-standing STI policy. The policy lists participation in industrial action, along with misconduct and underperformance, as disqualifying factors for bonus eligibility.  

HEINEKEN said this policy was communicated to employees before the strike to maintain transparency. 

“While HEINEKEN notes the Labour Court’s reasoning with respect, the company is carefully considering the judgment and assessing its next steps,” the brewer said.  

The company added that it remains committed to constructive engagement with stakeholders, adherence to legal obligations, and the wellbeing of employees. 

Judge Lagrange ordered HEINEKEN to disclose how the 2023 STI bonuses were calculated and to pay the affected employees the bonuses that were withheld.  

The case arose after the company refused to pay bonuses to Solidarity members who participated in the protected strike, which sought organisational rights. Employees who did not participate in the strike received the full STI bonus after approval by the company’s board in June 2023. 

Solidarity argued that its members met all the qualifying criteria for the incentive except for participating in the strike. The union maintained that withholding the bonus solely on this basis constituted unlawful discrimination and victimisation under section 5 of the LRA. 

HEINEKEN contended that it acted within the provisions of its STI policy, which predates the strike. It argued that withholding the bonus supported operational stability and formed part of legitimate collective bargaining strategy. The company maintained that its approach was neither arbitrary nor driven by improper motives. 

However, Judge Lagrange rejected this defence, ruling that HEINEKEN failed to prove that the differential treatment was rational, proportionate, or connected to a legitimate objective.  

The judgment cited Labour Appeal Court precedent allowing employers to reward non-strikers only in narrowly defined situations aimed at protecting business operations. 

In this case, the court found HEINEKEN had not shown that withholding the STI was necessary to preserve operations or proportionate to the limited impact of the two-day strike, which involved only Solidarity members seeking organisational rights. 

HEINEKEN is now reviewing the ruling as it considers its next course of action. 

Sign up HERE to receive our email newsletters with the latest news and insights from Africa and around the world, and follow us on our WhatsApp channel for updates.