43 Judgment No. CCZ 2/18 Constitutional Application No. CCZ 86/15 them the minimum retrenchment package based on length of service was not based on arbitrariness. It was based on internationally acceptable legal standards. The provisions of Article 12(1)(a) of the Convention are relevant in testing the constitutionality of the retrospective application of s 12 of the Act to the applicants. An examination of the provisions of s 12C(2) of the Act shows that they closely reflect the requirements of Article 12(1)(a) of the Convention. The Convention contains universally accepted norms. It constitutes a touchstone against which the notion of fairness may be gauged. This is not to suggest that the notion of fairness is exclusive of employers’ legitimate commercial interests. It indicates that a central purpose of modern employment law is to guarantee the protection of workers even at the time of termination of employment on notice at the initiative of the employer. The applicants were aware at the time they terminated employees’ contracts on notice that the law required an employer who terminated employees’ contracts for reasons of retrenchment to pay them severance packages calculated on the basis of length of service. The retrospective financial obligation imposed on the applicants and the other employers similarly situated was measured in terms of a formula substantially similar to that relating to the calculation of severance packages. The imposition of the financial obligation on employers who terminated employees’ contracts on notice to pay the minimum retrenchment package based on the length of service was not disproportionate to the applicants’ experience. The applicants want to ignore the fact that the principle behind Article 12(1)(a) of the Convention, the law governing retrenchments of employees with which they are familiar, and the