41 Judgment No. CCZ 2/18 Constitutional Application No. CCZ 86/15 See John Grogan: “Employment Rights” 1 ed Juta pp 93-97. John Grogan supra states at p 98 that: “Considerations of fairness normally arise in situations where one person has power to dispense or deny favours to others. The fair labour practice is concerned with the kind of favours employers are able to bestow on employees – positions, benefits and sanctions for ill-discipline. Relief for unfair labour practices is designed to ensure that employers do not abuse their power to bestow or withhold favours and benefits, or impose discipline in an unfair manner. In this sense, the right to fair labour practices is a check on employer unilateralism.” In the founding affidavit the applicants said: “32. The effect of the amendment is to have implications on (the) applicants’ right to the protection of the law as set out in section 56(1) of the Constitution. This is because the law opens up (the) applicants to a monetary claim in the absence of a sound legal or commercial basis. It also constitutes an unfair labour practice in violation of section 65(1) of the Constitution in that it requires an employer to pay from monies that are not in existence. … ”. (my emphasis)” What is complained of by the applicants as unfair labour practice is the retrospective imposition by the Legislature on employers who terminated their employees’ contracts on notice of the obligation to pay them a minimum retrenchment package. The employees would be receiving payment of minimum retrenchment packages as a matter of right in terms of s 12C of the Act. That cannot be called an unfair labour practice. The fact that an employer has no money with which to discharge the obligation to the employee whose contract was terminated on notice does not make the obligation invalid. Section 12C(2) of the Act is consistent with international best practices. The International Labour Organisation (“ILO”) Convention 158 (“the Convention”) contains principles which have