The extension of collective agreements to non- parties for dismissal for operational requirements
- Authors: Lupondwana, Masiza Howard
- Date: 2022-12
- Subjects: Labor laws and legislation--South Africa , Unfair labor practices
- Language: English
- Type: Master's theses , text
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/59724 , vital:62387
- Description: Section 23 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa1 states that “Everyone has the right to fair labour practice. (2) Every worker has the right to – (a) to form and join a trade union; (b) to participate in the activities and programmes of a trade union; and (c) to strike’’. The Labour Relations Act 2 (the LRA) was enacted to give effect to section 23 of the Constitution, to regulate the organizational rights of trade union, to promote and facilitate collective bargaining at the workplace and at sectoral level. Its purpose is to advance the economic development, social justice, labour peace and democratization of the workplace by fulfilling the primary objectives of this Act. Firstly, this study seeks to critically examine the extension of collective agreements and effect of section 23(1) (d) in both small- and large-scale retrenchments (s189 & 189 A). A right to fair dismissal is a guaranteed employment right as outlined in section 185 of the LRA. Danielle Venn writes that “legislation is not the only source of employment, labour law clearly set a minimum standard while collective agreements or individual contracts can include provisions more generous to employees than those in legislation.3 This indicates that collective agreements are mechanisms aimed at creating conducive working conditions of employment between the employer and employee in the workplace. By ensuring that resolutions aimed at promoting general welfare of employees are implemented, regulating and enhancement of employee benefits, and other matters of mutual interest are expressed in the agreement. Individual employment law has express terms which clearly state that an employment contract may incorporate the employer’s disciplinary code of conduct. This mostly include procedure to be followed during termination of service or dismissal. , Thesis (LLM) -- Faculty of Law, Department of Mercantile law, 2022
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2022-12
- Authors: Lupondwana, Masiza Howard
- Date: 2022-12
- Subjects: Labor laws and legislation--South Africa , Unfair labor practices
- Language: English
- Type: Master's theses , text
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/59724 , vital:62387
- Description: Section 23 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa1 states that “Everyone has the right to fair labour practice. (2) Every worker has the right to – (a) to form and join a trade union; (b) to participate in the activities and programmes of a trade union; and (c) to strike’’. The Labour Relations Act 2 (the LRA) was enacted to give effect to section 23 of the Constitution, to regulate the organizational rights of trade union, to promote and facilitate collective bargaining at the workplace and at sectoral level. Its purpose is to advance the economic development, social justice, labour peace and democratization of the workplace by fulfilling the primary objectives of this Act. Firstly, this study seeks to critically examine the extension of collective agreements and effect of section 23(1) (d) in both small- and large-scale retrenchments (s189 & 189 A). A right to fair dismissal is a guaranteed employment right as outlined in section 185 of the LRA. Danielle Venn writes that “legislation is not the only source of employment, labour law clearly set a minimum standard while collective agreements or individual contracts can include provisions more generous to employees than those in legislation.3 This indicates that collective agreements are mechanisms aimed at creating conducive working conditions of employment between the employer and employee in the workplace. By ensuring that resolutions aimed at promoting general welfare of employees are implemented, regulating and enhancement of employee benefits, and other matters of mutual interest are expressed in the agreement. Individual employment law has express terms which clearly state that an employment contract may incorporate the employer’s disciplinary code of conduct. This mostly include procedure to be followed during termination of service or dismissal. , Thesis (LLM) -- Faculty of Law, Department of Mercantile law, 2022
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2022-12
The dismissal of employees for a group or team misconduct
- Authors: Mnisi, Daphney Sibongile
- Date: 2021-04
- Subjects: Gqeberha (South Africa) , Eastern Cape (South Africa) , Unfair labor practices
- Language: English
- Type: Master's theses , text
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/51184 , vital:43226
- Description: South African labour law is founded on the fundamental constitutional right of fair “labour practices”. This fundamental right is afforded to both the employer and workers. This means that in the employment relationship, there are two competing rights involved which necessitate the need to strike a balance when each party’s rights are exercised. Therefore, this right is not absolute, and it is subject to limitations as per the provisions of section 36 of the Constitution. The Labour Relations Act, amongst other labour law resources considered in this research, give effect to those competing rights and seek to strike the necessary balance by establishing guidelines to protect the individual employee against unfair dismissals, amongst other things. It requires that the dismissal of an employee be fair. This requirement is met where two elements are fulfilled: (1) substantive fairness and (2) procedural fairness. The purpose of this study is to focus on “misconduct” as a valid reason for dismissal, as well as “group or team misconduct” which is included in the notion and ambit of “misconduct”. This type of misconduct involves a group or team who the employer has identified as having committed a misconduct, but the employer, due to different reasons explored in this research, is unable to identify the specific individual employees directly involved in the primary misconduct it wishes to prosecute. Therefore, the employer formulates a disciplinary charge of “group or team misconduct” to discipline the entire group or team. This group or team may form part of the entire workforce or a team within a department of the employer’s business. , Thesis (LLM) -- Faculty of Law, Mercantile Law, 2021
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2021-04
- Authors: Mnisi, Daphney Sibongile
- Date: 2021-04
- Subjects: Gqeberha (South Africa) , Eastern Cape (South Africa) , Unfair labor practices
- Language: English
- Type: Master's theses , text
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/51184 , vital:43226
- Description: South African labour law is founded on the fundamental constitutional right of fair “labour practices”. This fundamental right is afforded to both the employer and workers. This means that in the employment relationship, there are two competing rights involved which necessitate the need to strike a balance when each party’s rights are exercised. Therefore, this right is not absolute, and it is subject to limitations as per the provisions of section 36 of the Constitution. The Labour Relations Act, amongst other labour law resources considered in this research, give effect to those competing rights and seek to strike the necessary balance by establishing guidelines to protect the individual employee against unfair dismissals, amongst other things. It requires that the dismissal of an employee be fair. This requirement is met where two elements are fulfilled: (1) substantive fairness and (2) procedural fairness. The purpose of this study is to focus on “misconduct” as a valid reason for dismissal, as well as “group or team misconduct” which is included in the notion and ambit of “misconduct”. This type of misconduct involves a group or team who the employer has identified as having committed a misconduct, but the employer, due to different reasons explored in this research, is unable to identify the specific individual employees directly involved in the primary misconduct it wishes to prosecute. Therefore, the employer formulates a disciplinary charge of “group or team misconduct” to discipline the entire group or team. This group or team may form part of the entire workforce or a team within a department of the employer’s business. , Thesis (LLM) -- Faculty of Law, Mercantile Law, 2021
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2021-04
Unfair labour practice relating to promotion in the public education sector
- Authors: Tsheko, Toto
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Unfair labor practices , Mediation
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/6050 , vital:21034
- Description: This topic deals with unfair labour practice relating to promotion and will focus mainly on the public education sector. The Labour Relations Act of 1956 and 1995, with respect to the concept of unfair labour practice, will be analysed. It is through this discussion that one appreciates how the concept of unfair labour practices has evolved in South African law. An attempt is made to define promotion and in this regard reference is made to cases decided upon by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) or the Labour Court (LC). Furthermore, promotion is defined within the context of public education and applicable legislation. Due regard must be to the employment relationship between the employer and the employee as well as compare the current employee’s job with the job applied to. Unfair conduct by the employer will be discussed within the context of promotion. The prerogative of the employer will be discussed with reference to case law and that discussion will include an analysis of various principles with regard to procedural and substantive fairness. Various remedies provided for in dispute resolution mechanism in line with the provisions of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 and relevant case laws will also be discussed. The last chapter deals with how to strike a balance between employee rights (that is educators) and the rights of learners, in the context of promotion disputes. In this regard reference to case laws will be made. In general the topic will deal with unfair labour practice, definition of promotion including promotion of educators, unfair conduct of the employer, onus of proof, remedies and striking the balance between the rights of the learners and educators.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
- Authors: Tsheko, Toto
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Unfair labor practices , Mediation
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/6050 , vital:21034
- Description: This topic deals with unfair labour practice relating to promotion and will focus mainly on the public education sector. The Labour Relations Act of 1956 and 1995, with respect to the concept of unfair labour practice, will be analysed. It is through this discussion that one appreciates how the concept of unfair labour practices has evolved in South African law. An attempt is made to define promotion and in this regard reference is made to cases decided upon by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) or the Labour Court (LC). Furthermore, promotion is defined within the context of public education and applicable legislation. Due regard must be to the employment relationship between the employer and the employee as well as compare the current employee’s job with the job applied to. Unfair conduct by the employer will be discussed within the context of promotion. The prerogative of the employer will be discussed with reference to case law and that discussion will include an analysis of various principles with regard to procedural and substantive fairness. Various remedies provided for in dispute resolution mechanism in line with the provisions of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 and relevant case laws will also be discussed. The last chapter deals with how to strike a balance between employee rights (that is educators) and the rights of learners, in the context of promotion disputes. In this regard reference to case laws will be made. In general the topic will deal with unfair labour practice, definition of promotion including promotion of educators, unfair conduct of the employer, onus of proof, remedies and striking the balance between the rights of the learners and educators.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
Suspension as an unfair labour practice
- Authors: Share, Hanli
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: Labor laws and legislation , Unfair labor practices
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10273 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1018655
- Description: Suspension as a form of an unfair labour practice can be of two categories. There could be a situation where an employer suspends an employee as a disciplinary sanction after an employee has committed an act of misconduct. This is often referred to as a punitive suspension. An employer may also suspend an employee pending a disciplinary hearing. In this case the employee has not yet been found guilty because the investigation into the alleged misconduct is still on going. The employee may be suspended as a way of preventing him from interfering with the investigation process into the alleged misconduct. This form of suspension is often referred to as a preventative suspension. It is very important to note the distinction between the two forms of suspension because the processes that are followed when effecting them are different. Failure to acknowledge the difference might result in a situation where an employer might be effecting a preventative suspension but the consequences might be that of a punitive suspension and end-up being an unfair labour practice. Suspension is a disciplinary measure, and it is important to note that in the event that the employer elects to implement a suspension, its conduct must be disciplinary in nature and intent and should be corrective rather than punitive.Unlike dismissals where the Code of Good Practice of the Labour Relations Act, No 66 of 1995 provides guidance on what constitutes procedural and substantive fairness, there are no guidelines on what constitutes procedural and substantive fairness when it comes to suspensions. This has resulted in a situation where suspension is treated as a minor aspect of disciplinary measures that is frequently abused as it is often on full remuneration. This, however, does not allow an employer to suspend employees at will, without merit and without following proper procedure. Suspension could have severe adverse effects on employees and often affects their reputation, goodwill, human dignity, self-esteem and the right to meaningful association and work. It is for this reason that suspension must be effected in a way that is procedurally and substantively fair.Punitive suspension is implemented as a sanction and is often without pay and is a last resort prior to dismissal. Preventative suspension occurs prior to a disciplinary hearing, with the aim of temporarily removing the employee from the workplace to enable the employer to conduct a proper investigation without interference. Unfortunately preventative suspensions are often abused by employers in that they protract over extended periods of time, making the preventative suspension punitive in nature, to the extent that the courts have been forced to intervene and lay down stringent requirements that must be met in order to prevent such abuse.There are various requirements for suspension which range from the intention of the employer, the audi alteram partem rule, sufficient reasons prior to suspension to period of suspension. Most employment relationships are governed by disciplinary codes or collective agreements, which often place limitations on the concept of suspension. Some codes provide for special leave at the option of the employee, which the employer often abuses instead of utilizing the preventative suspension option. This, however, is more often than not to suit a political agenda.In the event of non-compliance by an employer, an employee is not left remediless. An unfair suspension constitutes an unfair labour practice and an employee has the right to refer such dispute to the relevant labour forums like the CCMA or the relevant bargaining council. Employees are cautioned not to refer their disputes to the Labour Court for final relief, but rather to only approach the courts for urgent interim relief, like interdicts.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
- Authors: Share, Hanli
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: Labor laws and legislation , Unfair labor practices
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10273 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1018655
- Description: Suspension as a form of an unfair labour practice can be of two categories. There could be a situation where an employer suspends an employee as a disciplinary sanction after an employee has committed an act of misconduct. This is often referred to as a punitive suspension. An employer may also suspend an employee pending a disciplinary hearing. In this case the employee has not yet been found guilty because the investigation into the alleged misconduct is still on going. The employee may be suspended as a way of preventing him from interfering with the investigation process into the alleged misconduct. This form of suspension is often referred to as a preventative suspension. It is very important to note the distinction between the two forms of suspension because the processes that are followed when effecting them are different. Failure to acknowledge the difference might result in a situation where an employer might be effecting a preventative suspension but the consequences might be that of a punitive suspension and end-up being an unfair labour practice. Suspension is a disciplinary measure, and it is important to note that in the event that the employer elects to implement a suspension, its conduct must be disciplinary in nature and intent and should be corrective rather than punitive.Unlike dismissals where the Code of Good Practice of the Labour Relations Act, No 66 of 1995 provides guidance on what constitutes procedural and substantive fairness, there are no guidelines on what constitutes procedural and substantive fairness when it comes to suspensions. This has resulted in a situation where suspension is treated as a minor aspect of disciplinary measures that is frequently abused as it is often on full remuneration. This, however, does not allow an employer to suspend employees at will, without merit and without following proper procedure. Suspension could have severe adverse effects on employees and often affects their reputation, goodwill, human dignity, self-esteem and the right to meaningful association and work. It is for this reason that suspension must be effected in a way that is procedurally and substantively fair.Punitive suspension is implemented as a sanction and is often without pay and is a last resort prior to dismissal. Preventative suspension occurs prior to a disciplinary hearing, with the aim of temporarily removing the employee from the workplace to enable the employer to conduct a proper investigation without interference. Unfortunately preventative suspensions are often abused by employers in that they protract over extended periods of time, making the preventative suspension punitive in nature, to the extent that the courts have been forced to intervene and lay down stringent requirements that must be met in order to prevent such abuse.There are various requirements for suspension which range from the intention of the employer, the audi alteram partem rule, sufficient reasons prior to suspension to period of suspension. Most employment relationships are governed by disciplinary codes or collective agreements, which often place limitations on the concept of suspension. Some codes provide for special leave at the option of the employee, which the employer often abuses instead of utilizing the preventative suspension option. This, however, is more often than not to suit a political agenda.In the event of non-compliance by an employer, an employee is not left remediless. An unfair suspension constitutes an unfair labour practice and an employee has the right to refer such dispute to the relevant labour forums like the CCMA or the relevant bargaining council. Employees are cautioned not to refer their disputes to the Labour Court for final relief, but rather to only approach the courts for urgent interim relief, like interdicts.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »