The unfair labour practice relating to suspension
- Authors: Moela, Matlose Phineas
- Date: 2018
- Subjects: Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa Labor policy -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/23038 , vital:30398
- Description: This treatise considers unfair-labour- practice relating to suspensions in the workplace. Furthermore the treatise outlines the legal framework relating to suspensions in the workplace. As I explore this fundamental issues of the law, the fairness relating to suspension will be examined. Some recommendations are also made as to how departments and organisations must develop guidelines and policies which are legally sound to deal with suspension in the workplace. Employees often challenge the fairness of their suspension in the workplace. These challenges are based on a number of things, including failure to provide an employee to make representations, failure to comply with policies regulating suspensions in the workplace, suspension without pay, prolonged suspensions, etc. The treatise therefore also consider these challenges as well as the recourse available to employees. The treatise commences with the legal framework and principles contained in the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the LRA) applicable to suspensions. The treatise then considers other legislation and recent developments in both the public and private sector. The study concludes with remedies available to employees in instances where an unfair-labour-practice relating to suspension has been found to be committed by an employer during the suspension process.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2018
- Authors: Moela, Matlose Phineas
- Date: 2018
- Subjects: Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa Labor policy -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/23038 , vital:30398
- Description: This treatise considers unfair-labour- practice relating to suspensions in the workplace. Furthermore the treatise outlines the legal framework relating to suspensions in the workplace. As I explore this fundamental issues of the law, the fairness relating to suspension will be examined. Some recommendations are also made as to how departments and organisations must develop guidelines and policies which are legally sound to deal with suspension in the workplace. Employees often challenge the fairness of their suspension in the workplace. These challenges are based on a number of things, including failure to provide an employee to make representations, failure to comply with policies regulating suspensions in the workplace, suspension without pay, prolonged suspensions, etc. The treatise therefore also consider these challenges as well as the recourse available to employees. The treatise commences with the legal framework and principles contained in the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the LRA) applicable to suspensions. The treatise then considers other legislation and recent developments in both the public and private sector. The study concludes with remedies available to employees in instances where an unfair-labour-practice relating to suspension has been found to be committed by an employer during the suspension process.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2018
The constitutionality of Section 14 of the Employment of Educators Act
- Authors: Delport, Gerhardus Jordaan
- Date: 2017
- Subjects: Educational law and legislation -- South Africa Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/15479 , vital:28257
- Description: The Department of Education, as part of the public sector, employs educators in terms of the Employment of Educators Act (EEA),1 whereas the rest of the public servants are employed in terms of the Public Service Act (PSA). If an educator is absent for more than 14 consecutive days without the permission of the employer, the educator is deemed to be discharged according to section 14(1)(a). With regard to the rest of the public sector, a similar provision is put in place, where section 17(5)(a) provides for the discharge of a public officer who is absent from his / her duties without the permission of the Head of Department for a calendar month (31 days). Sometimes long absent periods are caused by personal circumstances of the employee which are unforeseen. If the employee reports for duty after the dismissal, section 14(2) of the EEA provides that, the employee may be reinstated by the employer on good cause shown, after a post-dismissal hearing. If an employee in the public sector is discharged based on these deeming provisions, the employment is terminated by the operation of the law and there is no dismissal. This means that the employer is not responsible for the termination, meaning than there exists no option to review the dismissal. The supreme law of the Republic of South Africa (RSA) is the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (the Constitution).5 The question at hand is whether the deeming provision of section 14 of the EEA6 is constitutional. The Labour Relations Act (LRA) goes further by stipulating that every person has the right not to be unfairly dismissed, and not to be subjected to unfair labour practice.7 Section 23 of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right to fair labour practices. Furthermore, section 33 of the Constitution provides for fair administrative action. The question is whether these provisions, dealing with the dismissal of educators, limit the employee’s constitutional right to a fair labour practice.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2017
- Authors: Delport, Gerhardus Jordaan
- Date: 2017
- Subjects: Educational law and legislation -- South Africa Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/15479 , vital:28257
- Description: The Department of Education, as part of the public sector, employs educators in terms of the Employment of Educators Act (EEA),1 whereas the rest of the public servants are employed in terms of the Public Service Act (PSA). If an educator is absent for more than 14 consecutive days without the permission of the employer, the educator is deemed to be discharged according to section 14(1)(a). With regard to the rest of the public sector, a similar provision is put in place, where section 17(5)(a) provides for the discharge of a public officer who is absent from his / her duties without the permission of the Head of Department for a calendar month (31 days). Sometimes long absent periods are caused by personal circumstances of the employee which are unforeseen. If the employee reports for duty after the dismissal, section 14(2) of the EEA provides that, the employee may be reinstated by the employer on good cause shown, after a post-dismissal hearing. If an employee in the public sector is discharged based on these deeming provisions, the employment is terminated by the operation of the law and there is no dismissal. This means that the employer is not responsible for the termination, meaning than there exists no option to review the dismissal. The supreme law of the Republic of South Africa (RSA) is the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (the Constitution).5 The question at hand is whether the deeming provision of section 14 of the EEA6 is constitutional. The Labour Relations Act (LRA) goes further by stipulating that every person has the right not to be unfairly dismissed, and not to be subjected to unfair labour practice.7 Section 23 of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right to fair labour practices. Furthermore, section 33 of the Constitution provides for fair administrative action. The question is whether these provisions, dealing with the dismissal of educators, limit the employee’s constitutional right to a fair labour practice.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2017
The fairness of sanctions for misconduct dismissals
- Matoti, Kenneth Augustus Linda
- Authors: Matoti, Kenneth Augustus Linda
- Date: 2017
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa Economic sanctions -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/45503 , vital:38622
- Description: The determination of the fairness of the sanction of dismissal depends on a number of factors and is also influenced by various court decisions. One of the factors which play a key role in the determination of the fairness of the sanction is substantive fairness. Substantive fairness can be described as the valid and fair reason for the sanction of dismissal. The employer can only dismiss an employee if the employer has valid and fair reason to do so. Valid refers to lawful reason and fairness involves the consideration of all factors. After this exercise the sanction of dismissal becomes the only appropriate sanction, no alternative sanction can be considered. In evaluating the substantive fairness of the sanction of dismissal, Item 7 of the Code requires the employer to consider whether a rule was in place, the employee was aware of the rule, the rule has been consistently applied and whether the employee contravened a rule or not. If this has not happened the sanction imposed by the employer will be substantively unfair.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2017
- Authors: Matoti, Kenneth Augustus Linda
- Date: 2017
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa Economic sanctions -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/45503 , vital:38622
- Description: The determination of the fairness of the sanction of dismissal depends on a number of factors and is also influenced by various court decisions. One of the factors which play a key role in the determination of the fairness of the sanction is substantive fairness. Substantive fairness can be described as the valid and fair reason for the sanction of dismissal. The employer can only dismiss an employee if the employer has valid and fair reason to do so. Valid refers to lawful reason and fairness involves the consideration of all factors. After this exercise the sanction of dismissal becomes the only appropriate sanction, no alternative sanction can be considered. In evaluating the substantive fairness of the sanction of dismissal, Item 7 of the Code requires the employer to consider whether a rule was in place, the employee was aware of the rule, the rule has been consistently applied and whether the employee contravened a rule or not. If this has not happened the sanction imposed by the employer will be substantively unfair.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2017
Inherent requirements of a job as a defence to unfair discrimination
- Authors: Le Roux, André
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Affirmative action programs -- South Africa , Discrimination in employment -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/8757 , vital:26427
- Description: Equality is a fundamental constitutional value in the Constitution. Formal equality presupposes that all persons are equal bearers of rights and that inequality can be eliminated by extending the same rights to all. Formal equality is blind to social and economic differences between groups and individuals. Substantive equality, on the other hand, is receptive to entrenched, structural inequality, meaning that the equality clause of the Constitution must be read as founded on a substantive concept of equality. An employer can utilise the defence of an inherent requirement of a job in the case of an unfair-discrimination claim since the defence is available in terms of both the Employment Equity Act, in respect of employment discrimination, and the Labour Relations Act in respect of discriminatory dismissals. The defence is narrow in that only essential duties of a particular job will be taken into account to determine inherent requirements of a particular job. Reported judgments where this defence is used are scant. What makes the defence more onerous is that an employer has to show that the particular employee could not be reasonably accommodated, before the inherent-requirement defence will succeed. It is integral to the determination of whether there was unfair discrimination and whether such discrimination was justifiable. An important debate in our discrimination law relates to the question of whether any significance should be attached to the fact that only unfair discrimination is outlawed. Neither of the aforementioned pieces of legislation clearly state that affirmative action or an inherent requirement of a job are the only defences available to employers. Where these two defences are found to be not applicable, may the fairness be decided in terms of a general fairness defence? This question is also addressed in the present treatise. It is submitted that foreign law is a valuable interpretive tool, provided it is used wisely, in that judgments originating from courts and tribunals in the United Kingdom and Canada may assist to provide an understanding of the issues central to employment discrimination law and the parameters of the defence of inherent requirements of the job. Thus, in developing employment discrimination law in South Africa, consideration of foreign jurisprudence may prove informative.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
- Authors: Le Roux, André
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Affirmative action programs -- South Africa , Discrimination in employment -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/8757 , vital:26427
- Description: Equality is a fundamental constitutional value in the Constitution. Formal equality presupposes that all persons are equal bearers of rights and that inequality can be eliminated by extending the same rights to all. Formal equality is blind to social and economic differences between groups and individuals. Substantive equality, on the other hand, is receptive to entrenched, structural inequality, meaning that the equality clause of the Constitution must be read as founded on a substantive concept of equality. An employer can utilise the defence of an inherent requirement of a job in the case of an unfair-discrimination claim since the defence is available in terms of both the Employment Equity Act, in respect of employment discrimination, and the Labour Relations Act in respect of discriminatory dismissals. The defence is narrow in that only essential duties of a particular job will be taken into account to determine inherent requirements of a particular job. Reported judgments where this defence is used are scant. What makes the defence more onerous is that an employer has to show that the particular employee could not be reasonably accommodated, before the inherent-requirement defence will succeed. It is integral to the determination of whether there was unfair discrimination and whether such discrimination was justifiable. An important debate in our discrimination law relates to the question of whether any significance should be attached to the fact that only unfair discrimination is outlawed. Neither of the aforementioned pieces of legislation clearly state that affirmative action or an inherent requirement of a job are the only defences available to employers. Where these two defences are found to be not applicable, may the fairness be decided in terms of a general fairness defence? This question is also addressed in the present treatise. It is submitted that foreign law is a valuable interpretive tool, provided it is used wisely, in that judgments originating from courts and tribunals in the United Kingdom and Canada may assist to provide an understanding of the issues central to employment discrimination law and the parameters of the defence of inherent requirements of the job. Thus, in developing employment discrimination law in South Africa, consideration of foreign jurisprudence may prove informative.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
Termination of the contract of employment not constituting dismissal
- Authors: Sipuka, Sibongile
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor discipline -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10258 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1021152
- Description: Section 23 of the Constitution provides that everyone has a right to fair labour practice. The constitutional right to fair labour practices includes the right not to be unfairly dismissed and is given effect to by section 185 of the LRA. The constitutional right not to be unfairly dismissed is given effect to by Chapter VIII of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (the LRA), which provides a remedy for an unfair dismissal. Schedule 8 of the LRA contains a “Code of Good Practice: Dismissal”, which the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (the CCMA) and the Labour Courts must take into account when determining the fairness of a dismissal. The LRA expressly recognises three grounds for termination of the employment contract namely; misconduct on the part of the employee, incapacity due to an employee’s poor work performance, ill health or injury and termination due an employer’s operational requirements. In terms of the LRA, a dismissal must be procedurally and substantively fair. The requirements for procedural and substantive fairness are contained in Schedule 8 of the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal. The provisions of section 185 of the LRA apply to all employers and employees in both the public and the private sectors, with the exception of members of the National Defence Force, the National Intelligence Agency, the South African Secret Service and the South African National Academy of Intelligence. Section 213 of the LRA defines an “employee” as any person, excluding an independent contractor, who works for another person or for the State and who receives, or is entitled to receive, any remuneration and any person who in any manner assists in carrying out or conducting the business of an employer. Section 200A of the LRA sets out the presumption as to who is an employee. This is a guideline to assist in determining who is an employee The Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (the BCEA) sets minimum terms and conditions of employment including the notice of termination of employment. Under the common law an employment contract of employment can be terminated on either the expiration of the agreed period of employment or on completion of the specified task in cases of fixed-term contracts. Also, in terms of general contract principles an employment contract may be terminated by notice duly given by either party or by summary termination in the event of a material breach on the part of either party. The death of either party may terminate the employment contract. However, the death of an employer will not necessarily lead to the contract’s termination. An employment contract may also terminate by operation of law or effluxion of time namely retirement and coming into being of fixed-term contracts, by mutual agreement, employee resigning, due to insolvency of the employer and due to supervening impossibility of performance. In the circumstances indicated above, the termination of the contract of employment does not constitute dismissal. This means that the CCMA and the Labour Court do not have jurisdiction to determine should the employee allege that his or her dismissal was unfair. It has been argued that the instances where a termination of a contract of employment is terminated, but there is no dismissal should be scrutinised to avoid a situation where employees are deprived of protection afforded by the fundamental right not to be unfairly dismissed. There have been some instances where employment contracts contain clauses that provide for automatic termination of employment contracts. It has been held by the courts in various decisions that such clauses are against public policy and thus invalid. The Labour Court stated that a contractual device that renders the termination of a contract something other than a dismissal is exactly the exploitation the LRA prohibits There are various court decisions providing guidelines of circumstances in which termination of employment may be regarded as not constituting dismissal. The main focus of the treatise is to discuss these instances and critically analyse the approach taken by forums like the CCMA, bargaining councils and the Labour Court in dealing with such instances
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
- Authors: Sipuka, Sibongile
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor discipline -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10258 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1021152
- Description: Section 23 of the Constitution provides that everyone has a right to fair labour practice. The constitutional right to fair labour practices includes the right not to be unfairly dismissed and is given effect to by section 185 of the LRA. The constitutional right not to be unfairly dismissed is given effect to by Chapter VIII of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (the LRA), which provides a remedy for an unfair dismissal. Schedule 8 of the LRA contains a “Code of Good Practice: Dismissal”, which the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (the CCMA) and the Labour Courts must take into account when determining the fairness of a dismissal. The LRA expressly recognises three grounds for termination of the employment contract namely; misconduct on the part of the employee, incapacity due to an employee’s poor work performance, ill health or injury and termination due an employer’s operational requirements. In terms of the LRA, a dismissal must be procedurally and substantively fair. The requirements for procedural and substantive fairness are contained in Schedule 8 of the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal. The provisions of section 185 of the LRA apply to all employers and employees in both the public and the private sectors, with the exception of members of the National Defence Force, the National Intelligence Agency, the South African Secret Service and the South African National Academy of Intelligence. Section 213 of the LRA defines an “employee” as any person, excluding an independent contractor, who works for another person or for the State and who receives, or is entitled to receive, any remuneration and any person who in any manner assists in carrying out or conducting the business of an employer. Section 200A of the LRA sets out the presumption as to who is an employee. This is a guideline to assist in determining who is an employee The Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (the BCEA) sets minimum terms and conditions of employment including the notice of termination of employment. Under the common law an employment contract of employment can be terminated on either the expiration of the agreed period of employment or on completion of the specified task in cases of fixed-term contracts. Also, in terms of general contract principles an employment contract may be terminated by notice duly given by either party or by summary termination in the event of a material breach on the part of either party. The death of either party may terminate the employment contract. However, the death of an employer will not necessarily lead to the contract’s termination. An employment contract may also terminate by operation of law or effluxion of time namely retirement and coming into being of fixed-term contracts, by mutual agreement, employee resigning, due to insolvency of the employer and due to supervening impossibility of performance. In the circumstances indicated above, the termination of the contract of employment does not constitute dismissal. This means that the CCMA and the Labour Court do not have jurisdiction to determine should the employee allege that his or her dismissal was unfair. It has been argued that the instances where a termination of a contract of employment is terminated, but there is no dismissal should be scrutinised to avoid a situation where employees are deprived of protection afforded by the fundamental right not to be unfairly dismissed. There have been some instances where employment contracts contain clauses that provide for automatic termination of employment contracts. It has been held by the courts in various decisions that such clauses are against public policy and thus invalid. The Labour Court stated that a contractual device that renders the termination of a contract something other than a dismissal is exactly the exploitation the LRA prohibits There are various court decisions providing guidelines of circumstances in which termination of employment may be regarded as not constituting dismissal. The main focus of the treatise is to discuss these instances and critically analyse the approach taken by forums like the CCMA, bargaining councils and the Labour Court in dealing with such instances
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
Termination of the contract of employment not constituting dismissal
- Sipuka, Sibongile, Supervisor details
- Authors: Sipuka, Sibongile , Supervisor details
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor discipline -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/4811 , vital:20701
- Description: Section 23 of the Constitution provides that everyone has a right to fair labour practice. The constitutional right to fair labour practices includes the right not to be unfairly dismissed and is given effect to by section 185 of the LRA. The constitutional right not to be unfairly dismissed is given effect to by Chapter VIII of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (the LRA), which provides a remedy for an unfair dismissal. Schedule 8 of the LRA contains a “Code of Good Practice: Dismissal”, which the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (the CCMA) and the Labour Courts must take into account when determining the fairness of a dismissal. The LRA expressly recognises three grounds for termination of the employment contract namely; misconduct on the part of the employee, incapacity due to an employee’s poor work performance, ill health or injury and termination due an employer’s operational requirements. In terms of the LRA, a dismissal must be procedurally and substantively fair. The requirements for procedural and substantive fairness are contained in Schedule 8 of the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal. The provisions of section 185 of the LRA apply to all employers and employees in both the public and the private sectors, with the exception of members of the National Defence Force, the National Intelligence Agency, the South African Secret Service and the South African National Academy of Intelligence. Section 213 of the LRA defines an “employee” as any person, excluding an independent contractor, who works for another person or for the State and who receives, or is entitled to receive, any remuneration and any person who in any manner assists in carrying out or conducting the business of an employer. Section 200A of the LRA sets out the presumption as to who is an employee. This is a guideline to assist in determining who is an employee. The Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (the BCEA) sets minimum terms and conditions of employment including the notice of termination of employment. Under the common law an employment contract of employment can be terminated on either the expiration of the agreed period of employment or on completion of the specified task in cases of fixed-term contracts. Also, in terms of general contract principles an employment contract may be terminated by notice duly given by either party or by summary termination in the event of a material breach on the part of either party. The death of either party may terminate the employment contract. However, the death of an employer will not necessarily lead to the contract’s termination. An employment contract may also terminate by operation of law or effluxion of time namely retirement and coming into being of fixed-term contracts, by mutual agreement, employee resigning, due to insolvency of the employer and due to supervening impossibility of performance. In the circumstances indicated above, the termination of the contract of employment does not constitute dismissal. This means that the CCMA and the Labour Court do not have jurisdiction to determine should the employee allege that his or her dismissal was unfair. It has been argued that the instances where a termination of a contract of employment is terminated, but there is no dismissal should be scrutinised to avoid a situation where employees are deprived of protection afforded by the fundamental right not to be unfairly dismissed. There have been some instances where employment contracts contain clauses that provide for automatic termination of employment contracts. It has been held by the courts in various decisions that such clauses are against public policy and thus invalid. The Labour Court stated that a contractual device that renders the termination of a contract something other than a dismissal is exactly the exploitation the LRA prohibits. There are various court decisions providing guidelines of circumstances in which termination of employment may be regarded as not constituting dismissal. The main focus of the treatise is to discuss these instances and critically analyse the approach taken by forums like the CCMA, bargaining councils and the Labour Court in dealing with such instances.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
- Authors: Sipuka, Sibongile , Supervisor details
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor discipline -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/4811 , vital:20701
- Description: Section 23 of the Constitution provides that everyone has a right to fair labour practice. The constitutional right to fair labour practices includes the right not to be unfairly dismissed and is given effect to by section 185 of the LRA. The constitutional right not to be unfairly dismissed is given effect to by Chapter VIII of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (the LRA), which provides a remedy for an unfair dismissal. Schedule 8 of the LRA contains a “Code of Good Practice: Dismissal”, which the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (the CCMA) and the Labour Courts must take into account when determining the fairness of a dismissal. The LRA expressly recognises three grounds for termination of the employment contract namely; misconduct on the part of the employee, incapacity due to an employee’s poor work performance, ill health or injury and termination due an employer’s operational requirements. In terms of the LRA, a dismissal must be procedurally and substantively fair. The requirements for procedural and substantive fairness are contained in Schedule 8 of the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal. The provisions of section 185 of the LRA apply to all employers and employees in both the public and the private sectors, with the exception of members of the National Defence Force, the National Intelligence Agency, the South African Secret Service and the South African National Academy of Intelligence. Section 213 of the LRA defines an “employee” as any person, excluding an independent contractor, who works for another person or for the State and who receives, or is entitled to receive, any remuneration and any person who in any manner assists in carrying out or conducting the business of an employer. Section 200A of the LRA sets out the presumption as to who is an employee. This is a guideline to assist in determining who is an employee. The Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (the BCEA) sets minimum terms and conditions of employment including the notice of termination of employment. Under the common law an employment contract of employment can be terminated on either the expiration of the agreed period of employment or on completion of the specified task in cases of fixed-term contracts. Also, in terms of general contract principles an employment contract may be terminated by notice duly given by either party or by summary termination in the event of a material breach on the part of either party. The death of either party may terminate the employment contract. However, the death of an employer will not necessarily lead to the contract’s termination. An employment contract may also terminate by operation of law or effluxion of time namely retirement and coming into being of fixed-term contracts, by mutual agreement, employee resigning, due to insolvency of the employer and due to supervening impossibility of performance. In the circumstances indicated above, the termination of the contract of employment does not constitute dismissal. This means that the CCMA and the Labour Court do not have jurisdiction to determine should the employee allege that his or her dismissal was unfair. It has been argued that the instances where a termination of a contract of employment is terminated, but there is no dismissal should be scrutinised to avoid a situation where employees are deprived of protection afforded by the fundamental right not to be unfairly dismissed. There have been some instances where employment contracts contain clauses that provide for automatic termination of employment contracts. It has been held by the courts in various decisions that such clauses are against public policy and thus invalid. The Labour Court stated that a contractual device that renders the termination of a contract something other than a dismissal is exactly the exploitation the LRA prohibits. There are various court decisions providing guidelines of circumstances in which termination of employment may be regarded as not constituting dismissal. The main focus of the treatise is to discuss these instances and critically analyse the approach taken by forums like the CCMA, bargaining councils and the Labour Court in dealing with such instances.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
The requirement of "bumping" in operational-requirement dismissals
- Authors: Strydom, Wynand Wilhelmus
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/5896 , vital:21009
- Description: This treatise interrogates the concept of bumping and commences with the background and rationale to the study. It poses a problem statement and sets out the aims and objectives it intends to achieve by virtue of specific research questions identified in the first chapter. The second chapter deals with the history and origin of the concept of bumping whereafter it elaborates on the evolution of bumping in the South African labour-law context and it furthermore introduces the retrenchment guidelines as drafted by Halton Cheadle in 1985. A review and reappraisal of the retrenchment guidelines by Andre van Niekerk are also raised in the second chapter. This is followed by a discussion on the aspects relating to fair selection criteria as pronounced by South African labour-law jurisprudence and deals specifically with the concept of LIFO and the employment universe. The third chapter also raises the various forms of bumping, as well as applicable limitations thereto. Following an in-depth look at the South African courts’ interpretation of bumping-related scenarios, a comparison with international standards is launched whereby relevant ILO recommendations are used as reference. An interpretation of United Kingdom case law is discussed, whereafter it is compared with the South African approach. The fifth chapter deals with the legislative requirements for fair dismissals and fair retrenchment dismissals in particular. The nexus between substantive and procedural fairness requirements is highlighted and the remainder of the fifth chapter deals with procedural fairness requirements which would be applicable in bumping-related retrenchment scenarios. The final chapter briefly alludes to whether bumping should be categorised as a genuine alternative to retrenchment, or merely as an extension of LIFO as a selection criterion. The treatise concludes with procedural recommendations in dealing with bumped employees in the form of retrenchment guidelines for consultations with employees affected by bumping.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
- Authors: Strydom, Wynand Wilhelmus
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/5896 , vital:21009
- Description: This treatise interrogates the concept of bumping and commences with the background and rationale to the study. It poses a problem statement and sets out the aims and objectives it intends to achieve by virtue of specific research questions identified in the first chapter. The second chapter deals with the history and origin of the concept of bumping whereafter it elaborates on the evolution of bumping in the South African labour-law context and it furthermore introduces the retrenchment guidelines as drafted by Halton Cheadle in 1985. A review and reappraisal of the retrenchment guidelines by Andre van Niekerk are also raised in the second chapter. This is followed by a discussion on the aspects relating to fair selection criteria as pronounced by South African labour-law jurisprudence and deals specifically with the concept of LIFO and the employment universe. The third chapter also raises the various forms of bumping, as well as applicable limitations thereto. Following an in-depth look at the South African courts’ interpretation of bumping-related scenarios, a comparison with international standards is launched whereby relevant ILO recommendations are used as reference. An interpretation of United Kingdom case law is discussed, whereafter it is compared with the South African approach. The fifth chapter deals with the legislative requirements for fair dismissals and fair retrenchment dismissals in particular. The nexus between substantive and procedural fairness requirements is highlighted and the remainder of the fifth chapter deals with procedural fairness requirements which would be applicable in bumping-related retrenchment scenarios. The final chapter briefly alludes to whether bumping should be categorised as a genuine alternative to retrenchment, or merely as an extension of LIFO as a selection criterion. The treatise concludes with procedural recommendations in dealing with bumped employees in the form of retrenchment guidelines for consultations with employees affected by bumping.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
The unfair labour practice relating to benefits
- Authors: Timothy, Andrea Francis
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Employee fringe benefits -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10259 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1021157
- Description: The meaning of the term “benefits” in the context of unfair labour practice jurisprudence, having previously been unsettled for more than a decade, has now been settled by the Labour Appeal Court in the Apollo.1 Prior to Apollo,2 our courts have struggled to adopt a stance to maintain the distinction between disputes of rights and disputes of interest as separate compartments. The prevalent view at that stage was that, in order for an employee to lodge a dispute at the CCMA or Bargaining Council the employee would have to show that he or she had a right to the benefit that arises by virtue of contract, statute or collective agreement, failing which the CCMA or a Bargaining Council would not have the jurisdiction to determine the dispute, in which case it may constitute a dispute of interest and the employee will have to embark on an industrial action to secure a benefit. Apollo3 endorsed a previous decision of the Labour Court,4 i.e. by placing “benefits” into the following two categories: (1) Where the dispute is about a demand by employees concerning their benefits, it can be settled by way of industrial action. (2) Where the dispute concerns the fairness of the employer's conduct, it must be settled by way of adjudication or arbitration. As a result of the above categorisation, the CCMA or Bargaining Council may adjudicate a dispute relating to benefits where there is a pre-existing benefit and the employer refuses to comply with its obligation towards the employer in that regard. It may also adjudicate disputes relating to the provision of a car allowance (i.e. where the employer retains the discretion to grant or withhold the allowance) and disputes relating to the provision of bonuses (i.e. where the employer retains the discretion to grant or withhold the bonus). In this treatise, I set out the history and development of the legislation in relation to the concept of “benefits” (in the context of unfair labour practice) so as to understand how our Labour Appeal Court has now come to settle the issues above.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
- Authors: Timothy, Andrea Francis
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Employee fringe benefits -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10259 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1021157
- Description: The meaning of the term “benefits” in the context of unfair labour practice jurisprudence, having previously been unsettled for more than a decade, has now been settled by the Labour Appeal Court in the Apollo.1 Prior to Apollo,2 our courts have struggled to adopt a stance to maintain the distinction between disputes of rights and disputes of interest as separate compartments. The prevalent view at that stage was that, in order for an employee to lodge a dispute at the CCMA or Bargaining Council the employee would have to show that he or she had a right to the benefit that arises by virtue of contract, statute or collective agreement, failing which the CCMA or a Bargaining Council would not have the jurisdiction to determine the dispute, in which case it may constitute a dispute of interest and the employee will have to embark on an industrial action to secure a benefit. Apollo3 endorsed a previous decision of the Labour Court,4 i.e. by placing “benefits” into the following two categories: (1) Where the dispute is about a demand by employees concerning their benefits, it can be settled by way of industrial action. (2) Where the dispute concerns the fairness of the employer's conduct, it must be settled by way of adjudication or arbitration. As a result of the above categorisation, the CCMA or Bargaining Council may adjudicate a dispute relating to benefits where there is a pre-existing benefit and the employer refuses to comply with its obligation towards the employer in that regard. It may also adjudicate disputes relating to the provision of a car allowance (i.e. where the employer retains the discretion to grant or withhold the allowance) and disputes relating to the provision of bonuses (i.e. where the employer retains the discretion to grant or withhold the bonus). In this treatise, I set out the history and development of the legislation in relation to the concept of “benefits” (in the context of unfair labour practice) so as to understand how our Labour Appeal Court has now come to settle the issues above.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
The determination of compensation in unfair dismissal cases
- Authors: Dayimani, Vuyisile
- Date: 2014
- Subjects: Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Workers' compensation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10275 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1020775
- Description: The LRA 66 of 1995 was established to give effect to section 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, which guarantees that everyone has a right to fair labour practices. Amongst others, the purpose of the LRA is to advance economic development, labour peace and the effective resolution of labour disputes. At common law termination of employment was occasioned by the conduct of the employer or employee, in terms of which either party may terminate an employment contract by giving agreed notice or reasonable notice. The LRA broadened the common law concept of “repudiation” of a contract of employment in terms of which section 186 of the LRA now defines the term “dismissal” to mean various possible instances that can be caused by the employer or employee. Furthermore, section 185 of the same Act clearly states that a dismissal can be found to be unfair and makes provision for redress to an employee who would be aggrieved by a dismissal. Compensation is one of the remedies that can be awarded to an employee who is found to have been unfairly dismissed. Unlike the LRA of 1956 which gave the courts an unfettered discretion regarding the compensation that could be awarded, section 194 of the current LRA places a limit on the compensation amount that can be awarded. A decision hereon is determined with reference to whether the dismissal is found to have been procedurally, substantively unfair or both. The Act further requires that the compensation must be just and equitable. A challenge in applying section 194 of the Act in this regard is that there would be vast inconsistencies in terms of the amount of compensation to be awarded and that certain presiding officers could consider different approaches in considering factors to be determined when deciding on compensation. In many other instances compensation for unfair dismissal would be decided around the idea of solely punishing the employer. This research document is mainly concerned with identifying the said challenges through case law by considering the decisions of the commissioners and judges in interpreting the old and current provisions of section 194 of the Act. The old section 194 of the Act created a formula to be followed by presiding officers when making a determination on the compensation awarded. The interpretation of the section and its formula brought with it its own complications. The amended section 194 on the other hand, conferred a discretion on presiding officers to award compensation within the caps of 12 months and 24 months for procedurally and substantively unfair dismissal respectively, for as long as the compensation would be just and equitable in all circumstances. Relevant case law and the opinions of labour law experts have been of great assistance in interpreting the current section 194. The factors do not constitute an exhaustive list. They are a mere guideline to presiding officers so as to eliminate or minimize inconsistencies in awarding compensation.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2014
- Authors: Dayimani, Vuyisile
- Date: 2014
- Subjects: Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Workers' compensation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10275 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1020775
- Description: The LRA 66 of 1995 was established to give effect to section 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, which guarantees that everyone has a right to fair labour practices. Amongst others, the purpose of the LRA is to advance economic development, labour peace and the effective resolution of labour disputes. At common law termination of employment was occasioned by the conduct of the employer or employee, in terms of which either party may terminate an employment contract by giving agreed notice or reasonable notice. The LRA broadened the common law concept of “repudiation” of a contract of employment in terms of which section 186 of the LRA now defines the term “dismissal” to mean various possible instances that can be caused by the employer or employee. Furthermore, section 185 of the same Act clearly states that a dismissal can be found to be unfair and makes provision for redress to an employee who would be aggrieved by a dismissal. Compensation is one of the remedies that can be awarded to an employee who is found to have been unfairly dismissed. Unlike the LRA of 1956 which gave the courts an unfettered discretion regarding the compensation that could be awarded, section 194 of the current LRA places a limit on the compensation amount that can be awarded. A decision hereon is determined with reference to whether the dismissal is found to have been procedurally, substantively unfair or both. The Act further requires that the compensation must be just and equitable. A challenge in applying section 194 of the Act in this regard is that there would be vast inconsistencies in terms of the amount of compensation to be awarded and that certain presiding officers could consider different approaches in considering factors to be determined when deciding on compensation. In many other instances compensation for unfair dismissal would be decided around the idea of solely punishing the employer. This research document is mainly concerned with identifying the said challenges through case law by considering the decisions of the commissioners and judges in interpreting the old and current provisions of section 194 of the Act. The old section 194 of the Act created a formula to be followed by presiding officers when making a determination on the compensation awarded. The interpretation of the section and its formula brought with it its own complications. The amended section 194 on the other hand, conferred a discretion on presiding officers to award compensation within the caps of 12 months and 24 months for procedurally and substantively unfair dismissal respectively, for as long as the compensation would be just and equitable in all circumstances. Relevant case law and the opinions of labour law experts have been of great assistance in interpreting the current section 194. The factors do not constitute an exhaustive list. They are a mere guideline to presiding officers so as to eliminate or minimize inconsistencies in awarding compensation.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2014
Establishing a fair sanction in misconduct cases
- Authors: Grigor, Francois
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Labor discipline -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10261 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1021217
- Description: It is the right of every employee in South Africa not to be unfairly dismissed. According to the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 an employer may fairly dismiss an employee on the grounds of conduct, capacity or operational requirements. In addition, the employer is required to also comply with a fair procedure before effecting a dismissal. The requirement of procedural fairness is, however, not as stringent as it was under the previous dispensation established by the former Industrial Courts in terms of the earlier Labour Relations Act. The question as to whether or not a reason for dismissal is fair, is to be established by the facts of each individual case, and the suitability of dismissal as an appropriate remedy. It remains a challenge to establish if dismissal would be an appropriate sanction in a particular case of misconduct. The test is whether the award is one that a reasonable decision-maker could arrive at taking into account the evidence to be considered. It is no longer the employer’s view that is dominant, but “[u]ltimately, the commissioner’s sense of fairness is what must prevail”. The notion of fairness however applies equally to employer an employee and it involves balancing the competing and, every so often, inconsistent, interests of the employer on the one side, and the employee on the other side. The relative weight afforded to the particular interests creates very specific challenges, but nonetheless depends essentially on the overall circumstances of each individual case. Whether dismissal for misconduct is for a fair reason would established by the facts of the case, coupled with the appropriateness of dismissal as a sanction. Dismissal as a penalty should be reserved for cases involving serious misconduct and repeated disciplinary infractions. A crucial question would be whether the misconduct is of such a serious nature that it goes to the core of the employment relationship and makes any possible continued employment relationship intolerable. Additionally, apart from aspects like the importance of the rule breached and the harm caused by the employee’s breach, certain considerations should also be accounted, like length of service disciplinary history, and the employee’s personal circumstances, as well as the particular circumstances surrounding the infringement. Dishonest conduct by an employee that destroys the goodwill, trust and confidence an employer holds towards an employee, would normally be deemed as a significant breach which may justify a sanction of dismissal. The test is whether or not the misconduct was of such serious nature that it would make a continued employment relationship intolerable; “whether or not respondent’s actions had the effect of rendering the continuation of the relationship of employer and employee intolerable”. It still remains for the employer to present evidence that a continued relationship would be intolerable and not to merely liken serious misconduct with such a finding. Relatively recent case law seems to suggest that employers are entitled to a strict attitude towards dishonesty as a ground for dismissal. The objective of the CCMA Guidelines on Misconduct Arbitrations, effective from 1 January 2012, is to ensure that arbitrators issue consistent awards on dismissals involving misconduct. The questions that the guidelines seek to address are, inter alia, (i) how an arbitrator should conduct the proceedings; (ii) the valuation of evidence for the purpose of making an award; (iii) assessing the procedural fairness of a dismissal; (iv) assessing the substantive fairness of a dismissal; and (v) determining the remedy for an unfair dismissal. The Guidelines are peremptory in that arbitrators will have to take them into account and will have to provide an explanation if they deviate. It is undoubtedly a useful tool in guiding employers on what they need to present to commissioners at arbitration.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
- Authors: Grigor, Francois
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Labor discipline -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10261 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1021217
- Description: It is the right of every employee in South Africa not to be unfairly dismissed. According to the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 an employer may fairly dismiss an employee on the grounds of conduct, capacity or operational requirements. In addition, the employer is required to also comply with a fair procedure before effecting a dismissal. The requirement of procedural fairness is, however, not as stringent as it was under the previous dispensation established by the former Industrial Courts in terms of the earlier Labour Relations Act. The question as to whether or not a reason for dismissal is fair, is to be established by the facts of each individual case, and the suitability of dismissal as an appropriate remedy. It remains a challenge to establish if dismissal would be an appropriate sanction in a particular case of misconduct. The test is whether the award is one that a reasonable decision-maker could arrive at taking into account the evidence to be considered. It is no longer the employer’s view that is dominant, but “[u]ltimately, the commissioner’s sense of fairness is what must prevail”. The notion of fairness however applies equally to employer an employee and it involves balancing the competing and, every so often, inconsistent, interests of the employer on the one side, and the employee on the other side. The relative weight afforded to the particular interests creates very specific challenges, but nonetheless depends essentially on the overall circumstances of each individual case. Whether dismissal for misconduct is for a fair reason would established by the facts of the case, coupled with the appropriateness of dismissal as a sanction. Dismissal as a penalty should be reserved for cases involving serious misconduct and repeated disciplinary infractions. A crucial question would be whether the misconduct is of such a serious nature that it goes to the core of the employment relationship and makes any possible continued employment relationship intolerable. Additionally, apart from aspects like the importance of the rule breached and the harm caused by the employee’s breach, certain considerations should also be accounted, like length of service disciplinary history, and the employee’s personal circumstances, as well as the particular circumstances surrounding the infringement. Dishonest conduct by an employee that destroys the goodwill, trust and confidence an employer holds towards an employee, would normally be deemed as a significant breach which may justify a sanction of dismissal. The test is whether or not the misconduct was of such serious nature that it would make a continued employment relationship intolerable; “whether or not respondent’s actions had the effect of rendering the continuation of the relationship of employer and employee intolerable”. It still remains for the employer to present evidence that a continued relationship would be intolerable and not to merely liken serious misconduct with such a finding. Relatively recent case law seems to suggest that employers are entitled to a strict attitude towards dishonesty as a ground for dismissal. The objective of the CCMA Guidelines on Misconduct Arbitrations, effective from 1 January 2012, is to ensure that arbitrators issue consistent awards on dismissals involving misconduct. The questions that the guidelines seek to address are, inter alia, (i) how an arbitrator should conduct the proceedings; (ii) the valuation of evidence for the purpose of making an award; (iii) assessing the procedural fairness of a dismissal; (iv) assessing the substantive fairness of a dismissal; and (v) determining the remedy for an unfair dismissal. The Guidelines are peremptory in that arbitrators will have to take them into account and will have to provide an explanation if they deviate. It is undoubtedly a useful tool in guiding employers on what they need to present to commissioners at arbitration.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
Statutory regulation of temporary employment services
- Authors: Pauw, Julius Bremer
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: Temporary help services -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Temporary employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10245 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1019715
- Description: This treatise specifically explores section 198 of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995, which regulate temporary employment service. However, before one can assess this section in particular, other legislation has to be considered dealing with temporary employment services, read in conjunction with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996 (hereinafter the “Constitution”), as all legislation is subject thereto. As summarised by Navsa AJ in the judgment of Sidumo& Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd & Others: “The starting point is the Constitution. Section 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 provides that everyone has the right to fair labour practices”. The Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 (hereinafter the “LRA”) is also subject to the Constitution, and section 198 has to be evaluated and assessed against the Constitution as is set out in section 1 of the LRA, which provides that: “The purpose of this Act is to advance economic development, social justice, labour peace and the democratisation of the workplace by fulfilling the primary objects of this Act, which are (a) to give effect to and regulate the fundamental rights conferred by section 27 of the Constitution...” The LRA was drafted while the Interim Constitution was in effect, this being the reason why section 1(a) refers to section 27 of the Constitution, the Interim Constitution, and not the final Constitution, which was enacted in 1996. The Honourable Justice Conradie held in NAPTOSA & others v Minister of Education, Western Cape & others [2001] 22 ILJ 889 (C): “that the effect of section 1(a) is to ensure that the LRA “[marries] the enforcement of fundamental rights with the effective resolution of labour dispute temporary employment service . . . If an employer adopts a labour practice which is thought to be unfair, an aggrieved employee would in the first instance be obliged to seek a remedy under the LRA. If he or she finds no remedy under that Act, the LRA might come under constitutional scrutiny for not giving adequate protection to a constitutional right. If a labour practice permitted by the LRA is not fair, a court might be persuaded to strike down the impugned provision. But it would, I think, need a good deal of persuasion”. The Constitution and the LRA lay the basis for temporary employment services in the South African law context, and are the primary laws dealing with this topic. Although the main focus of the treatise is section 198 of the LRA in dealing with temporary employment services, it is evident that secondary labour legislation also regulates temporary employment services. It is noteworthy that each piece of legislation has different requirements and/or essentials regulating temporary employment services, even though some of the legislation have very similar provisions. Secondly, each of the pieces of legislation also determines and attaches different meanings to who the real employer is. This is important so as to establish who, as between the temporary employment service and its client, may be held liable for obligations arising out of the employment relationship. A tripartite relationship is created by temporary employment service arrangements, in that there is the temporary employment services –client relationship, the temporary employment service’s employer - employee relationship and the client –employee relationship, each with its own rights, obligations, and requirements for termination. A further focus of the treatise is the problems experienced in the employment relationship between the temporary employment service and its employees and the termination of the relationship. The difficulties and potential unfairness arising from termination of the relationship between the temporary employment service and its employees have resulted in legislative developments and proposed amendments, most notably the repeal of section 198. These proposals are discussed herein, including the question of whether section 198 should be repealed, or whether temporary employment services should be more strenuously regulated in order to resolve the problems being experienced with the application of section 198 in its present form. It is proposed in conclusion that temporary employment services be more strenuously regulated, as the repeal of section 198 will not be socially and economically beneficial to the workforce of South Africa, nor the Labour Market. Further, it would be contrary to the Constitution and purpose of the Labour Relations Act.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
- Authors: Pauw, Julius Bremer
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: Temporary help services -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Temporary employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10245 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1019715
- Description: This treatise specifically explores section 198 of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995, which regulate temporary employment service. However, before one can assess this section in particular, other legislation has to be considered dealing with temporary employment services, read in conjunction with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996 (hereinafter the “Constitution”), as all legislation is subject thereto. As summarised by Navsa AJ in the judgment of Sidumo& Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd & Others: “The starting point is the Constitution. Section 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 provides that everyone has the right to fair labour practices”. The Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 (hereinafter the “LRA”) is also subject to the Constitution, and section 198 has to be evaluated and assessed against the Constitution as is set out in section 1 of the LRA, which provides that: “The purpose of this Act is to advance economic development, social justice, labour peace and the democratisation of the workplace by fulfilling the primary objects of this Act, which are (a) to give effect to and regulate the fundamental rights conferred by section 27 of the Constitution...” The LRA was drafted while the Interim Constitution was in effect, this being the reason why section 1(a) refers to section 27 of the Constitution, the Interim Constitution, and not the final Constitution, which was enacted in 1996. The Honourable Justice Conradie held in NAPTOSA & others v Minister of Education, Western Cape & others [2001] 22 ILJ 889 (C): “that the effect of section 1(a) is to ensure that the LRA “[marries] the enforcement of fundamental rights with the effective resolution of labour dispute temporary employment service . . . If an employer adopts a labour practice which is thought to be unfair, an aggrieved employee would in the first instance be obliged to seek a remedy under the LRA. If he or she finds no remedy under that Act, the LRA might come under constitutional scrutiny for not giving adequate protection to a constitutional right. If a labour practice permitted by the LRA is not fair, a court might be persuaded to strike down the impugned provision. But it would, I think, need a good deal of persuasion”. The Constitution and the LRA lay the basis for temporary employment services in the South African law context, and are the primary laws dealing with this topic. Although the main focus of the treatise is section 198 of the LRA in dealing with temporary employment services, it is evident that secondary labour legislation also regulates temporary employment services. It is noteworthy that each piece of legislation has different requirements and/or essentials regulating temporary employment services, even though some of the legislation have very similar provisions. Secondly, each of the pieces of legislation also determines and attaches different meanings to who the real employer is. This is important so as to establish who, as between the temporary employment service and its client, may be held liable for obligations arising out of the employment relationship. A tripartite relationship is created by temporary employment service arrangements, in that there is the temporary employment services –client relationship, the temporary employment service’s employer - employee relationship and the client –employee relationship, each with its own rights, obligations, and requirements for termination. A further focus of the treatise is the problems experienced in the employment relationship between the temporary employment service and its employees and the termination of the relationship. The difficulties and potential unfairness arising from termination of the relationship between the temporary employment service and its employees have resulted in legislative developments and proposed amendments, most notably the repeal of section 198. These proposals are discussed herein, including the question of whether section 198 should be repealed, or whether temporary employment services should be more strenuously regulated in order to resolve the problems being experienced with the application of section 198 in its present form. It is proposed in conclusion that temporary employment services be more strenuously regulated, as the repeal of section 198 will not be socially and economically beneficial to the workforce of South Africa, nor the Labour Market. Further, it would be contrary to the Constitution and purpose of the Labour Relations Act.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
A comparison between the approaches to unfair discrimination in employment in South Africa and Nigeria
- Authors: Odeyemi, Hannah Olubunmi
- Date: 2012
- Subjects: Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- Nigeria , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- Nigeria
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10270 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1012054 , Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- Nigeria , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- Nigeria
- Description: Issues concerning employment are some of the most serious issues of our time. But it is in the last two decades or so that these started receiving consideration. For instance, South Africa has experienced changes in the landscape of employment relations in organisations in the last decades. And no area of South Africa law is more critical than the prohibition of unfair discrimination, especially in the workpalce. The enactment of the Constitution brought about the need to eradicate unfair discrimination in the workpalce. Section 9 of the Constitution states that no person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone and that national legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination. To enforce this, certain legislations like the Labour Law Act, Employment Act, Promotion of Equality and Prohibition of Unfair Discrimination Act (Equality Act), were enacted to give effect to the equality provision of the Constitution. In a similar vein, in Nigeria, workplace discrimination which is at the top of human rights violation perpetrated by employers of labour is of paramount concern to legislators and the government. Sex , age, ethinicty, religion, trade union membership and political opinion are some of the grounds upon which workers may not be discriminated against in Nigeria. Section 17 of the Constitution states that the State social order is founded on the ideals of freedom, equality and justice. It goes on to provide that every citizen shall have equality of rights, obligations and opportunities before the law. More specifically, the section stipilates that the State shall ensure that all citizens, without discrimination of any group whatsoever, have the opportunity of livehood as well as adequate opportunity to secure suitable employment and that there is equal pay for equal work without discrimination on account of sex, or any ground. Hence, there are The Nigerian Labour Act, the Federal Character Commission, etc that are saddled with the responsibility of addressing unfair discrimination and giving force to the provision of the Constitution. Despite the anti-discrimination laws and provisions made available in both countries, it is still alarming to see that unfair discrimination in the workplace is still on the increase. This, as will be discussed later, is probably due to factors such as lack of communication, long-stading patterns of educational inequalities that have resulted in inequalities in manpower, differences in drive, motivation, cultural disposition and geographical opportunities, racial difference and ethnicity, domination of one group by the other, etc. This research will briefly focus on the comparison between the approaches to unfair discrimination in employment between South Africa and Nigeria. It will discuss the development of unfair discrimination, grounds on which it is perpetrated, defences relating to unfair discrimination, and anti-discrimination laws put in place by the two jurisdictions to curb discrimination, as well as suggest on how to forestall unfair discrimination.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2012
- Authors: Odeyemi, Hannah Olubunmi
- Date: 2012
- Subjects: Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- Nigeria , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- Nigeria
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10270 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1012054 , Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- Nigeria , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- Nigeria
- Description: Issues concerning employment are some of the most serious issues of our time. But it is in the last two decades or so that these started receiving consideration. For instance, South Africa has experienced changes in the landscape of employment relations in organisations in the last decades. And no area of South Africa law is more critical than the prohibition of unfair discrimination, especially in the workpalce. The enactment of the Constitution brought about the need to eradicate unfair discrimination in the workpalce. Section 9 of the Constitution states that no person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone and that national legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination. To enforce this, certain legislations like the Labour Law Act, Employment Act, Promotion of Equality and Prohibition of Unfair Discrimination Act (Equality Act), were enacted to give effect to the equality provision of the Constitution. In a similar vein, in Nigeria, workplace discrimination which is at the top of human rights violation perpetrated by employers of labour is of paramount concern to legislators and the government. Sex , age, ethinicty, religion, trade union membership and political opinion are some of the grounds upon which workers may not be discriminated against in Nigeria. Section 17 of the Constitution states that the State social order is founded on the ideals of freedom, equality and justice. It goes on to provide that every citizen shall have equality of rights, obligations and opportunities before the law. More specifically, the section stipilates that the State shall ensure that all citizens, without discrimination of any group whatsoever, have the opportunity of livehood as well as adequate opportunity to secure suitable employment and that there is equal pay for equal work without discrimination on account of sex, or any ground. Hence, there are The Nigerian Labour Act, the Federal Character Commission, etc that are saddled with the responsibility of addressing unfair discrimination and giving force to the provision of the Constitution. Despite the anti-discrimination laws and provisions made available in both countries, it is still alarming to see that unfair discrimination in the workplace is still on the increase. This, as will be discussed later, is probably due to factors such as lack of communication, long-stading patterns of educational inequalities that have resulted in inequalities in manpower, differences in drive, motivation, cultural disposition and geographical opportunities, racial difference and ethnicity, domination of one group by the other, etc. This research will briefly focus on the comparison between the approaches to unfair discrimination in employment between South Africa and Nigeria. It will discuss the development of unfair discrimination, grounds on which it is perpetrated, defences relating to unfair discrimination, and anti-discrimination laws put in place by the two jurisdictions to curb discrimination, as well as suggest on how to forestall unfair discrimination.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2012
Termination of employment contract by operation of law in the education sector: the constitutionality and validity of the deeming provisions
- Authors: Mpati, Lungisa
- Date: 2012
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor contract -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Educational law and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10200 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/1600 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor contract -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Educational law and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: Fundamental to any contract of employment is the obligation that rests on an employee not to be absent from work without justification. Under the common law, if an employee did that, the employer would be entitled to dismiss him or her on notice. The International Labour Organization Convention (ILO) 158 of 1982 provides that the employer must have a reason for a dismissal and sets out broad categories or reasons for dismissals . Section 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996(Act 108 of 1998) provides that “Everyone has the right to fair labour practices”. Section 33 of the Constitution provides that “Everyone has the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA) is designed to give effect to just administrative action. Section 1 and 3 of the Labour Relations Act,1995(Act 66 of 1995)(LRA) require compliance with Article 7 and 8 of the ILO Convention 158 of 1982, when the employment of a worker has been terminated by his or her employer. The LRA protects employees against unfair dismissal. In the Department of Education, Section 14(1)(a) of the Employment of Educators Act, 1998 provides for the discharge of an educator in the event that he or she absents himself or herself from work for a period exceeding 14 consecutive days without the permission of the employer. A similar provision, Section 17(5)(a)(i) of the Public Service Act, 1994 provides for the discharge of an officer other than an educator who absents himself or herself from his or her official duties without the permission of the Head of Department for a period exceeding one calendar month. Section 14(2) of the Employment of Educators Act, 1998 and 17(5)(b) of the Public Service Act,1994 afford an employee who has been deemed discharged to show good cause why he or she should be reinstated. Against this background, the critical legal question is the constitutionality of the deeming provisions. The study will examine the validity of these provisions in relation to the ILO Conventions, Constitution, LRA and PAJA.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2012
- Authors: Mpati, Lungisa
- Date: 2012
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor contract -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Educational law and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10200 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/1600 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor contract -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Educational law and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: Fundamental to any contract of employment is the obligation that rests on an employee not to be absent from work without justification. Under the common law, if an employee did that, the employer would be entitled to dismiss him or her on notice. The International Labour Organization Convention (ILO) 158 of 1982 provides that the employer must have a reason for a dismissal and sets out broad categories or reasons for dismissals . Section 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996(Act 108 of 1998) provides that “Everyone has the right to fair labour practices”. Section 33 of the Constitution provides that “Everyone has the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA) is designed to give effect to just administrative action. Section 1 and 3 of the Labour Relations Act,1995(Act 66 of 1995)(LRA) require compliance with Article 7 and 8 of the ILO Convention 158 of 1982, when the employment of a worker has been terminated by his or her employer. The LRA protects employees against unfair dismissal. In the Department of Education, Section 14(1)(a) of the Employment of Educators Act, 1998 provides for the discharge of an educator in the event that he or she absents himself or herself from work for a period exceeding 14 consecutive days without the permission of the employer. A similar provision, Section 17(5)(a)(i) of the Public Service Act, 1994 provides for the discharge of an officer other than an educator who absents himself or herself from his or her official duties without the permission of the Head of Department for a period exceeding one calendar month. Section 14(2) of the Employment of Educators Act, 1998 and 17(5)(b) of the Public Service Act,1994 afford an employee who has been deemed discharged to show good cause why he or she should be reinstated. Against this background, the critical legal question is the constitutionality of the deeming provisions. The study will examine the validity of these provisions in relation to the ILO Conventions, Constitution, LRA and PAJA.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2012
Creating a new underclass : labour flexibility and the temporary employment services industry
- Authors: Van Der Merwe, Christine
- Date: 2010
- Subjects: Temporary employment , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Temporary help services , Temporary help services -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MSocSc
- Identifier: vital:3291 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1003079 , Temporary employment , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Temporary help services , Temporary help services -- South Africa
- Description: The core of the research focuses on the Temporary Employment Services (TES) Industry and its ability to provide labour flexibility for a number of client firms. The underlying notion that work is changing and becoming more flexible creates an exploratory realm for the concept of non-standard employment. The thesis draws on the conceptual model of the „flexible firm‟ and argues that the rise in non-standard forms of employment, particularly temporary employment within the TES industry, is primarily a result of the demand for labour flexibility. The TES industry that offers „labour on demand‟ is found to be an extremely secretive industry that is diverse in both its structure and services. The thesis reveals that the clients within the triangular employment relationship (TER) are reaping the most benefits especially with regard to escaping their obligations as the employer. The thesis explores human resource practices, unfair labour practices and the extensive loopholes exploited by the TES industry because of poor regulation. Consequently, the industry creates an „underclass‟ that is unprotected, insecure and easily exploitable. Qualitative research techniques were used in the form of semi-structured interviews. The thesis provides insights into the demand and supply of temporary workers in Port Elizabeth and addresses the problems associated with a TER and the TES industry as a whole.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2010
- Authors: Van Der Merwe, Christine
- Date: 2010
- Subjects: Temporary employment , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Temporary help services , Temporary help services -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MSocSc
- Identifier: vital:3291 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1003079 , Temporary employment , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Temporary help services , Temporary help services -- South Africa
- Description: The core of the research focuses on the Temporary Employment Services (TES) Industry and its ability to provide labour flexibility for a number of client firms. The underlying notion that work is changing and becoming more flexible creates an exploratory realm for the concept of non-standard employment. The thesis draws on the conceptual model of the „flexible firm‟ and argues that the rise in non-standard forms of employment, particularly temporary employment within the TES industry, is primarily a result of the demand for labour flexibility. The TES industry that offers „labour on demand‟ is found to be an extremely secretive industry that is diverse in both its structure and services. The thesis reveals that the clients within the triangular employment relationship (TER) are reaping the most benefits especially with regard to escaping their obligations as the employer. The thesis explores human resource practices, unfair labour practices and the extensive loopholes exploited by the TES industry because of poor regulation. Consequently, the industry creates an „underclass‟ that is unprotected, insecure and easily exploitable. Qualitative research techniques were used in the form of semi-structured interviews. The thesis provides insights into the demand and supply of temporary workers in Port Elizabeth and addresses the problems associated with a TER and the TES industry as a whole.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2010
Fairness of a dismissal from a contractural and administrative law perspective
- Authors: Voultsos, Leon
- Date: 2010
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10217 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/1288 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Description: Section 157 of the LRA provides for the nature and extent of the Labour Courts jurisdiction. This provision has been subjected to extensive interpretation by the Judiciary and the various interpretations of the courts have not been entirely consistent. Specific mention is made of the relevance and applicability of section 157(1) and (2) of the LRA regarding the overlap between administrative law and contractual law into labour law. Reference will be made to case law specifically dealing with cases concerning the jurisdiction of the civil courts and labour courts where cases concerning employment and labour matters were brought either in terms of the PAJA or on the basis of contract law. The question arose whether matters which appear to be quintessential labour matters but simultaneously also capable of being entertained on the basis of the PAJA or in terms of contract law are matters which, generally, in terms of section 157(1) of the LRA fall within the exclusive preserve of the Labour Court or, in terms of section 157(2) of the LRA, fall within the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and the Labour Court. The discussion which follows will also include reference to the current legal position pertaining to the prohibition of public sector employees from pressing their claims relating to employment or labour matters in the civil courts on the basis of the PAJA as decided in the Chirwa v Transnet Ltd (2008) 2 BLLR 97 (CC) and; the impact thereof on employees pressing claims pertaining to employment and labour matters in the civil courts on the basis of contract law. In addition the similarity of considerations which are common to both administrative law and contract law regarding the “overlap” of each into labour law will be considered and discussed. In the light of the discussion which follows agreement will be expressed with certain decisions of the High Court and the SCA where civil courts were held to retain jurisdiction to entertain common law contractual claims concerning labour and iv employment matters as opposed to restricting all employment and labour matters to the forums established under the LRA and to claims and remedies which are provided for by the LRA.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2010
- Authors: Voultsos, Leon
- Date: 2010
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10217 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/1288 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Description: Section 157 of the LRA provides for the nature and extent of the Labour Courts jurisdiction. This provision has been subjected to extensive interpretation by the Judiciary and the various interpretations of the courts have not been entirely consistent. Specific mention is made of the relevance and applicability of section 157(1) and (2) of the LRA regarding the overlap between administrative law and contractual law into labour law. Reference will be made to case law specifically dealing with cases concerning the jurisdiction of the civil courts and labour courts where cases concerning employment and labour matters were brought either in terms of the PAJA or on the basis of contract law. The question arose whether matters which appear to be quintessential labour matters but simultaneously also capable of being entertained on the basis of the PAJA or in terms of contract law are matters which, generally, in terms of section 157(1) of the LRA fall within the exclusive preserve of the Labour Court or, in terms of section 157(2) of the LRA, fall within the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and the Labour Court. The discussion which follows will also include reference to the current legal position pertaining to the prohibition of public sector employees from pressing their claims relating to employment or labour matters in the civil courts on the basis of the PAJA as decided in the Chirwa v Transnet Ltd (2008) 2 BLLR 97 (CC) and; the impact thereof on employees pressing claims pertaining to employment and labour matters in the civil courts on the basis of contract law. In addition the similarity of considerations which are common to both administrative law and contract law regarding the “overlap” of each into labour law will be considered and discussed. In the light of the discussion which follows agreement will be expressed with certain decisions of the High Court and the SCA where civil courts were held to retain jurisdiction to entertain common law contractual claims concerning labour and iv employment matters as opposed to restricting all employment and labour matters to the forums established under the LRA and to claims and remedies which are provided for by the LRA.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2010
Dismissals within the context of collective bargaining
- Authors: Qotoyi, Thanduxolo
- Date: 2009
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Collective bargaining -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10223 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/1039 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Collective bargaining -- South Africa
- Description: Competitive forces in the market force employers to change the way they operate their businesses. The changes that employers have to make often demand an alteration of the employees’ terms and conditions of employment. By law employers are not permitted to unilaterally effect changes to the employee’s terms and conditions of employment. They have to obtain the consent of the affected employees. This is where collective bargaining fits in. The employer has to negotiate with the employees. One way in which through the process of collective bargaining an employer can exert pressure on the employees to accept the changes is to effect a lock-out. Under the Labour Relations Act 28 of 1956 within the context of a lock-out, an employer was permitted to use conditional dismissal as a bargaining weapon. This conditional dismissal had to be coupled with an offer of reemployment should the employees accept an employer’s demand. In essence, the lock-out had a bite in the form of the conditional dismissal. This made the lock-out quite effective. The 1995 Labour Relations Act prohibits in no uncertain terms the use of a dismissal as a means of compelling employees to accept an employer’s demand in any matter of mutual interest. Within the collective bargaining context, dismissal is not a legitimate option. The employer only has the lock-out as a tool of compulsion. The definition of a lock-out in terms of this Act does not accommodate the use of dismissal. This makes the lock-out option to be less potent than it was under the 1956 Labour Relations Act. However, employers are permitted to dismiss on operational grounds, provided that they follow a fair procedure. Terms and conditions of employment greatly feature in the operational requirements of a business. If the employees’ terms and conditions of employment are not responsive to the operational requirements of the business and they are unwilling to accept changes to those terms, the employer has the right to dismiss them. The employer will not be dismissing the employees as a way of inducing them to accept the changes. He will instead be dismissing them on the basis of operational requirements. iv The question that then arises is how should a dismissal that is intended to compel employees to accept an employers demand (falling within section 187(1)(c) of the 1995 Labour Relations Act be distinguished from a dismissal that is genuinely based on operational requirements as contemplated by section 188(1)(a)(ii). Doesn’t the fact that section 187(1)(c) explicitly prohibits the use of dismissal within the context of collective bargaining give rise to some tension with section 188(1)(a)(ii) which categorically gives employers the right to dismiss on operational grounds. The decision of the Labour Appeal Court in Fry’s Metals v NUMSA has stated that there is no tension whatsoever between the two sections. The court has also ruled that the dismissals that are hit by section 187(1)(c) are those dismissals that are accompanied by an offer of reemployment. According to the court, this offer is indicative of the real purpose of the employer, namely to compel employees to accept his demand. Dismissals not accompanied by an offer of re-employment are on the other hand a true reflection of the fact that the employer is indeed dismissing the employees for operational requirements. This literal interpretation of the meaning and scope of section 187(1)(c) has the potential of opening the floodgates. Instead of resorting to the use of the lock-out to secure the agreement of employees in the collective bargaining process, employers now have a potent tool in the form of a dismissal. As long as the employer makes it abundantly clear that the dismissal is final and irrevocable, he is free from the claws of section 187(1)(c). Given the fact that the lock-out option is not always effective, employers may find it hard to resist the temptation to use the threat of permanent dismissal as a bargaining chip. It is an option that is emasculated by the fact that in an employer initiated lock-out the use of replacement labour is prohibited. The threat of not just a conditional dismissal but a permanent one may force employees to capitulate to the employer’s demand during negotiations. This would effectively render negotiations about changes to terms and conditions of employment a farce. The employer would have an upper hand. The implications of this narrow interpretation are quite far-reaching. The long held view that dismissal is not a legitimate weapon of coercion in the collective bargaining process is under serious challenge. Only conditional dismissals are illegitimate in the collective bargaining v arena. Permanent dismissals are permitted. This negates the very purpose of the collective bargaining process. This study seeks to examine the anomalies that flow from this interpretation of the meaning of section 187(1)(c). The study further investigates if this interpretation is not at odds with what the legislation really intended to achieve by enacting this clause. The study also explores ways in which the sanctity of collective bargaining could be restored. Recommendations are made to that effect.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2009
- Authors: Qotoyi, Thanduxolo
- Date: 2009
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Collective bargaining -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10223 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/1039 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Collective bargaining -- South Africa
- Description: Competitive forces in the market force employers to change the way they operate their businesses. The changes that employers have to make often demand an alteration of the employees’ terms and conditions of employment. By law employers are not permitted to unilaterally effect changes to the employee’s terms and conditions of employment. They have to obtain the consent of the affected employees. This is where collective bargaining fits in. The employer has to negotiate with the employees. One way in which through the process of collective bargaining an employer can exert pressure on the employees to accept the changes is to effect a lock-out. Under the Labour Relations Act 28 of 1956 within the context of a lock-out, an employer was permitted to use conditional dismissal as a bargaining weapon. This conditional dismissal had to be coupled with an offer of reemployment should the employees accept an employer’s demand. In essence, the lock-out had a bite in the form of the conditional dismissal. This made the lock-out quite effective. The 1995 Labour Relations Act prohibits in no uncertain terms the use of a dismissal as a means of compelling employees to accept an employer’s demand in any matter of mutual interest. Within the collective bargaining context, dismissal is not a legitimate option. The employer only has the lock-out as a tool of compulsion. The definition of a lock-out in terms of this Act does not accommodate the use of dismissal. This makes the lock-out option to be less potent than it was under the 1956 Labour Relations Act. However, employers are permitted to dismiss on operational grounds, provided that they follow a fair procedure. Terms and conditions of employment greatly feature in the operational requirements of a business. If the employees’ terms and conditions of employment are not responsive to the operational requirements of the business and they are unwilling to accept changes to those terms, the employer has the right to dismiss them. The employer will not be dismissing the employees as a way of inducing them to accept the changes. He will instead be dismissing them on the basis of operational requirements. iv The question that then arises is how should a dismissal that is intended to compel employees to accept an employers demand (falling within section 187(1)(c) of the 1995 Labour Relations Act be distinguished from a dismissal that is genuinely based on operational requirements as contemplated by section 188(1)(a)(ii). Doesn’t the fact that section 187(1)(c) explicitly prohibits the use of dismissal within the context of collective bargaining give rise to some tension with section 188(1)(a)(ii) which categorically gives employers the right to dismiss on operational grounds. The decision of the Labour Appeal Court in Fry’s Metals v NUMSA has stated that there is no tension whatsoever between the two sections. The court has also ruled that the dismissals that are hit by section 187(1)(c) are those dismissals that are accompanied by an offer of reemployment. According to the court, this offer is indicative of the real purpose of the employer, namely to compel employees to accept his demand. Dismissals not accompanied by an offer of re-employment are on the other hand a true reflection of the fact that the employer is indeed dismissing the employees for operational requirements. This literal interpretation of the meaning and scope of section 187(1)(c) has the potential of opening the floodgates. Instead of resorting to the use of the lock-out to secure the agreement of employees in the collective bargaining process, employers now have a potent tool in the form of a dismissal. As long as the employer makes it abundantly clear that the dismissal is final and irrevocable, he is free from the claws of section 187(1)(c). Given the fact that the lock-out option is not always effective, employers may find it hard to resist the temptation to use the threat of permanent dismissal as a bargaining chip. It is an option that is emasculated by the fact that in an employer initiated lock-out the use of replacement labour is prohibited. The threat of not just a conditional dismissal but a permanent one may force employees to capitulate to the employer’s demand during negotiations. This would effectively render negotiations about changes to terms and conditions of employment a farce. The employer would have an upper hand. The implications of this narrow interpretation are quite far-reaching. The long held view that dismissal is not a legitimate weapon of coercion in the collective bargaining process is under serious challenge. Only conditional dismissals are illegitimate in the collective bargaining v arena. Permanent dismissals are permitted. This negates the very purpose of the collective bargaining process. This study seeks to examine the anomalies that flow from this interpretation of the meaning of section 187(1)(c). The study further investigates if this interpretation is not at odds with what the legislation really intended to achieve by enacting this clause. The study also explores ways in which the sanctity of collective bargaining could be restored. Recommendations are made to that effect.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2009
The relationship between an automatically unfair dismissal in terms of section 187(1)(c) of the labour relations act and a dismissal for operational reasons
- Authors: James, Ncumisa Portia
- Date: 2009
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Downsizing of organizations -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10226 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/1034 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Downsizing of organizations -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: Common law does recognise the concept of dismissal based on operational requirements. It recognises dismissals that are based on breach of expressed or implied terms of contract of employment. The concept of operational requirements has its roots in the Labour Relations Act 28 of 1956. This Act recognised termination of employment of a number of employees due to ability, capacity, productivity, conduct and operational requirements and needs of undertaking industry trade or occupation of the employer as legitimate. Under the 1956 LRA, employers were allowed to dismiss employees if employees refused to accept the proposed change to conditions of employment. The dismissal is called lock-out dismissal. This kind of dismissal entitled employers to dismiss employees on condition that the dismissal was temporary and the workers would be re-employed when they agree to the demands of the employer. After the contract of employment was terminated between the employer and employees, the employer was allowed to implement the changes using scab labour. The 1995 Labour Relations Act introduced section 187(1)(c) that was intended to re-enforce the abolishing of the lock-out dismissal. This section strictly forbids the dismissal of employees in order to compel them to accept demands of the employer in matters of mutual interest. Such dismissals are regarded as automatically unfair. In terms of section 64(4) of the 1995 LRA employers are not permitted to unilaterally effect changes to employees’ terms and conditions of employment. They are required to seek and obtain consent of the affected employees. If employees refuse to accept the proposed changes, the employer can use lock-out as defence. Firstly, the employer can initiate lock-out until employees accede to its demand. Secondly, the employer can lock-out employees in response to the notice of strike or strike of the employees. The employer can use scab labour during this lock-out period. Unlike the lock-out dismissal, lock-out under the 1995 LRA does not include termination of contract of employment. iv In contrast, employers are allowed to dismiss employees who refuse to agree to change to their terms and conditions of employment on the ground of operational requirements provided a fair procedure is followed. This reason for dismissal is not viewed by the courts as a dismissal to induce employees to accept the demand of the employer. The question that this study seeks to examine is the relationship between automatic unfair dismissal in terms of section 187(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act and dismissal for operational requirements. A dispute between the employer and employees regarding change to terms and conditions of employment is a mutual interest dispute; and it therefore falls under collective bargaining. The same dispute can easily fall to rights dispute, because the reason for the proposed change to the production system and demand to the pursuit of improved efficiency and better achievement of profit objective related to operational requirement. There is obvious overlap between operational requirements and wage work bargaining. In Schoeman v Samsung Electronics, the court held that the employer is entitled to run its business in a prosperous way and this may entail affecting changes to terms and conditions of employment when the market forces demand so. In Mwasa v Independent Newspapers, the court held that change to terms and conditions of service of an employee can be proposed as a way to avoid retrenchment; dismissal of employees for refusing to accept the change is not covered by section 187(1)(c). In Fry’s Metals v Numsa, the court has rejected the notion that there is tension between section 187(1)(c) and section 188(1)(a)(ii). The court held that section 186(1) refers to dismissal or termination of workforce with the intention to end the employment contract and replacing the workforce with employees that are prepared to accept terms and conditions of employment that suit the employer’s operational requirements. The court argued further that the meaning of dismissal should be a v starting point when one wants to dispute the two sections. On the other hand, section 187(1)(c) was effected with a certain purpose, which is to prohibit the employer from dismissing employees in order to compel them to accept its demand in dispute of mutual interest. The court held that the dismissal in this case was final. The employer dismissed its employees because it did not need them anymore. This dismissal is in accordance with section 186(1). The court rejected that operational requirements is confirmed to saving business from bankruptcy. The court argued that the principle includes measures calculated to increase efficiency and profitability. The employer can dismiss and make more profit.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2009
- Authors: James, Ncumisa Portia
- Date: 2009
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Downsizing of organizations -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10226 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/1034 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Downsizing of organizations -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: Common law does recognise the concept of dismissal based on operational requirements. It recognises dismissals that are based on breach of expressed or implied terms of contract of employment. The concept of operational requirements has its roots in the Labour Relations Act 28 of 1956. This Act recognised termination of employment of a number of employees due to ability, capacity, productivity, conduct and operational requirements and needs of undertaking industry trade or occupation of the employer as legitimate. Under the 1956 LRA, employers were allowed to dismiss employees if employees refused to accept the proposed change to conditions of employment. The dismissal is called lock-out dismissal. This kind of dismissal entitled employers to dismiss employees on condition that the dismissal was temporary and the workers would be re-employed when they agree to the demands of the employer. After the contract of employment was terminated between the employer and employees, the employer was allowed to implement the changes using scab labour. The 1995 Labour Relations Act introduced section 187(1)(c) that was intended to re-enforce the abolishing of the lock-out dismissal. This section strictly forbids the dismissal of employees in order to compel them to accept demands of the employer in matters of mutual interest. Such dismissals are regarded as automatically unfair. In terms of section 64(4) of the 1995 LRA employers are not permitted to unilaterally effect changes to employees’ terms and conditions of employment. They are required to seek and obtain consent of the affected employees. If employees refuse to accept the proposed changes, the employer can use lock-out as defence. Firstly, the employer can initiate lock-out until employees accede to its demand. Secondly, the employer can lock-out employees in response to the notice of strike or strike of the employees. The employer can use scab labour during this lock-out period. Unlike the lock-out dismissal, lock-out under the 1995 LRA does not include termination of contract of employment. iv In contrast, employers are allowed to dismiss employees who refuse to agree to change to their terms and conditions of employment on the ground of operational requirements provided a fair procedure is followed. This reason for dismissal is not viewed by the courts as a dismissal to induce employees to accept the demand of the employer. The question that this study seeks to examine is the relationship between automatic unfair dismissal in terms of section 187(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act and dismissal for operational requirements. A dispute between the employer and employees regarding change to terms and conditions of employment is a mutual interest dispute; and it therefore falls under collective bargaining. The same dispute can easily fall to rights dispute, because the reason for the proposed change to the production system and demand to the pursuit of improved efficiency and better achievement of profit objective related to operational requirement. There is obvious overlap between operational requirements and wage work bargaining. In Schoeman v Samsung Electronics, the court held that the employer is entitled to run its business in a prosperous way and this may entail affecting changes to terms and conditions of employment when the market forces demand so. In Mwasa v Independent Newspapers, the court held that change to terms and conditions of service of an employee can be proposed as a way to avoid retrenchment; dismissal of employees for refusing to accept the change is not covered by section 187(1)(c). In Fry’s Metals v Numsa, the court has rejected the notion that there is tension between section 187(1)(c) and section 188(1)(a)(ii). The court held that section 186(1) refers to dismissal or termination of workforce with the intention to end the employment contract and replacing the workforce with employees that are prepared to accept terms and conditions of employment that suit the employer’s operational requirements. The court argued further that the meaning of dismissal should be a v starting point when one wants to dispute the two sections. On the other hand, section 187(1)(c) was effected with a certain purpose, which is to prohibit the employer from dismissing employees in order to compel them to accept its demand in dispute of mutual interest. The court held that the dismissal in this case was final. The employer dismissed its employees because it did not need them anymore. This dismissal is in accordance with section 186(1). The court rejected that operational requirements is confirmed to saving business from bankruptcy. The court argued that the principle includes measures calculated to increase efficiency and profitability. The employer can dismiss and make more profit.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2009
The remedies for unfair dismissal
- Authors: Cokile, Siyabonga
- Date: 2009
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10227 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/1033 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: In terms of section 193 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, there are basically three remedies for unfair dismissal and unfair labour practice, namely reinstatement, re-employment and compensation. In disputes of unfair labour practice an arbitrator may determine a dispute on terms that the arbitrator deems reasonable, including the abovementioned three remedies. For example, in an unfair labour practice dispute relating to promotion or appointment, an arbitrator may order that the process of appointment be started afresh, if is found that the process was flawed. The right to fair labour practice is a right that is enjoyed by everyone and it is a right upon which every employee enjoys not to be unfairly dismissed is entrenched in section 23 of the Bill of Rights. The rights of every employee contained in the Labour Relations Act give content and effect to the right to fair labour practice contained in section 23 of the Bill of Rights. Every trade union, employer’s organisation and employer has a right to engage in collective bargaining, which includes but not limited to the formulation of disciplinary policies in the workplace, which should be observed by every employee. Our constitution mandates the Legislature to enact legislation that regulates collective bargaining. One of the purpose of our Labour Relations Act is to promote collective bargaining and the effective resolution of labour disputes. The remedies for unfair dismissal and unfair labour practice therefore give content and effect to the purpose of the Act, which is to promote effective resolution of labour disputes. The Legislature has given a legislative and policy framework, in terms of which the labour disputes may be resolved. In order to restrict the powers of the arbitrators and courts, section 193 of the Act provides that in ordering the reinstatement and re-employment of dismissed employee, they must exercise a discretion to order reinstatement re-employment, not earlier than the date of dismissal. The remedy of compensation is an alternative remedy, which must be ordered if the circumstances set out in section 193(2)(a) to (d) are applicable. Some arbitrators have made a mistake of treating this remedy as part of the primary remedies. However, our courts have clarified the intention of the Legislature in crafting the remedies for unfair dismissal.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2009
- Authors: Cokile, Siyabonga
- Date: 2009
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10227 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/1033 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: In terms of section 193 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, there are basically three remedies for unfair dismissal and unfair labour practice, namely reinstatement, re-employment and compensation. In disputes of unfair labour practice an arbitrator may determine a dispute on terms that the arbitrator deems reasonable, including the abovementioned three remedies. For example, in an unfair labour practice dispute relating to promotion or appointment, an arbitrator may order that the process of appointment be started afresh, if is found that the process was flawed. The right to fair labour practice is a right that is enjoyed by everyone and it is a right upon which every employee enjoys not to be unfairly dismissed is entrenched in section 23 of the Bill of Rights. The rights of every employee contained in the Labour Relations Act give content and effect to the right to fair labour practice contained in section 23 of the Bill of Rights. Every trade union, employer’s organisation and employer has a right to engage in collective bargaining, which includes but not limited to the formulation of disciplinary policies in the workplace, which should be observed by every employee. Our constitution mandates the Legislature to enact legislation that regulates collective bargaining. One of the purpose of our Labour Relations Act is to promote collective bargaining and the effective resolution of labour disputes. The remedies for unfair dismissal and unfair labour practice therefore give content and effect to the purpose of the Act, which is to promote effective resolution of labour disputes. The Legislature has given a legislative and policy framework, in terms of which the labour disputes may be resolved. In order to restrict the powers of the arbitrators and courts, section 193 of the Act provides that in ordering the reinstatement and re-employment of dismissed employee, they must exercise a discretion to order reinstatement re-employment, not earlier than the date of dismissal. The remedy of compensation is an alternative remedy, which must be ordered if the circumstances set out in section 193(2)(a) to (d) are applicable. Some arbitrators have made a mistake of treating this remedy as part of the primary remedies. However, our courts have clarified the intention of the Legislature in crafting the remedies for unfair dismissal.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2009
The defence of inherent requirements of the job in unfair discrimination cases
- Authors: Kasika, Richard
- Date: 2006
- Subjects: Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Defense (Civil procedure) -- South Africa , Job analysis
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10236 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/450 , Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Defense (Civil procedure) -- South Africa , Job analysis
- Description: The discrimination jurisprudence in South Africa has developed over the previous decade since the promulgation of the interim and final Constitutions. The Employment Equity Act of 1998 also gave impetus to the development of equality jurisprudence with reference to the workplace. In terms of both the Constitution and the Employment Equity Act, unfair discrimination is forbidden. Both the Constitution and Employment Equity Act list specific grounds on which discrimination would be regarded as unfair. Although discrimination on any of the listed grounds would be regarded as automatically unfair, there is realisation that this cannot be an absolute position. The Employment Equity Act makes provision that employers be able to justify discrimination even on the listed grounds where there are justifiable reasons. In terms of the EEA, it is not unfair discrimination to differentiate between employees on the basis of an inherent requirement of the particular job. It is this defence that is considered in the present treatise. The inherent requirements of the job as a defence in unfair discrimination cases is one, which needs to be carefully considered it in fact requires a clear understanding of what constitutes an inherent requirement. It is equally important to understand that although in one instance it may be justifiable to exclude certain employees on the basis of an inherent requirement of the job, a generalisation may give an employer difficulties under certain circumstances. An employer who is faced with a prospective employee who suffers from a particular illness that would make it impossible to do the job, could raise the defence of an inherent requirement of the job. However, the fact that a particular employee has the same illness as the previous one not employed does not give an employer an automatic right to exclude all prospective employees who suffer from the same illness without having had consideration of their circumstances as well as those of their illnesses. The defence of inherent requirements of the job is therefore valid only where the essence of the business would be undermined by employing or not employing people with certain attributes required or not required to do the job.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2006
- Authors: Kasika, Richard
- Date: 2006
- Subjects: Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Defense (Civil procedure) -- South Africa , Job analysis
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10236 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/450 , Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Defense (Civil procedure) -- South Africa , Job analysis
- Description: The discrimination jurisprudence in South Africa has developed over the previous decade since the promulgation of the interim and final Constitutions. The Employment Equity Act of 1998 also gave impetus to the development of equality jurisprudence with reference to the workplace. In terms of both the Constitution and the Employment Equity Act, unfair discrimination is forbidden. Both the Constitution and Employment Equity Act list specific grounds on which discrimination would be regarded as unfair. Although discrimination on any of the listed grounds would be regarded as automatically unfair, there is realisation that this cannot be an absolute position. The Employment Equity Act makes provision that employers be able to justify discrimination even on the listed grounds where there are justifiable reasons. In terms of the EEA, it is not unfair discrimination to differentiate between employees on the basis of an inherent requirement of the particular job. It is this defence that is considered in the present treatise. The inherent requirements of the job as a defence in unfair discrimination cases is one, which needs to be carefully considered it in fact requires a clear understanding of what constitutes an inherent requirement. It is equally important to understand that although in one instance it may be justifiable to exclude certain employees on the basis of an inherent requirement of the job, a generalisation may give an employer difficulties under certain circumstances. An employer who is faced with a prospective employee who suffers from a particular illness that would make it impossible to do the job, could raise the defence of an inherent requirement of the job. However, the fact that a particular employee has the same illness as the previous one not employed does not give an employer an automatic right to exclude all prospective employees who suffer from the same illness without having had consideration of their circumstances as well as those of their illnesses. The defence of inherent requirements of the job is therefore valid only where the essence of the business would be undermined by employing or not employing people with certain attributes required or not required to do the job.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2006
The unfair labour practice relating to promotion
- Authors: Abrahams, Dawood
- Date: 2004
- Subjects: Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Promotions -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:11035 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/329 , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Promotions -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: This article deals with the South African law relating to promotions. As promotion disputes mostly arise as alleged unfair labour practices, a short discussion on how the concept of an unfair labour practice developed in South Africa is undertaken. In this regard the common law is studied in order to see whether it makes provision for protection of employees subjected to unfair labour practices relating to promotions. Through this study one soon realises that the common law is in fact inadequate to deal with unfair labour practices relating to promotions, and thus an enquiry into various legislative provisions are undertaken. The impact of the all-important Wiehahn Commission of Enquiry, established in 1979, is also briefly discussed. In this article an attempt is made to define the term ‘promotion’. In this regard reference is made to some cases adjudicated upon by the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (the “CCMA”). The cases referred to seem to favour the view that when one is defining the term ‘promotion’, regard must be had to the employment relationship between the employer and the employee, as well as the nature of the employee’s current work in relation to the work applied for, in order to establish whether in fact a promotion has taken place. It is necessary to consider what unfair conduct is defined as in the context of promotions. It seems that managerial prerogative is at the center of the enquiry into unfair conduct of the employer. Further to the analysis of unfair conduct, various principles that govern both procedural and substantive unfairness are considered. These principles are dealt with separately with reference to case law. Lastly the dispute resolution mechanisms are considered and a brief discussion on remedies is undertaken. The remedies are discussed with reference to case law, as well as the provisions of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 as amended by the Labour Relations Amendment Act 12 of 2002. The broad headings of this article are accordingly unfair labour practices, definition of promotions, unfair conduct of the employer, onus of proof and remedies. It is concluded with the proposition that once an employer has set policies and procedures in place in dealing with promotions, then such an employer should stick to those policies and procedures within the context of the law, as well as within the percepts of the vague and nebulous term of ‘fairness’. Should the employer fail to do so, the majority of cases indicate that such an employer will be guilty of an unfair labour practice relating to promotion.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2004
- Authors: Abrahams, Dawood
- Date: 2004
- Subjects: Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Promotions -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:11035 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/329 , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Promotions -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: This article deals with the South African law relating to promotions. As promotion disputes mostly arise as alleged unfair labour practices, a short discussion on how the concept of an unfair labour practice developed in South Africa is undertaken. In this regard the common law is studied in order to see whether it makes provision for protection of employees subjected to unfair labour practices relating to promotions. Through this study one soon realises that the common law is in fact inadequate to deal with unfair labour practices relating to promotions, and thus an enquiry into various legislative provisions are undertaken. The impact of the all-important Wiehahn Commission of Enquiry, established in 1979, is also briefly discussed. In this article an attempt is made to define the term ‘promotion’. In this regard reference is made to some cases adjudicated upon by the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (the “CCMA”). The cases referred to seem to favour the view that when one is defining the term ‘promotion’, regard must be had to the employment relationship between the employer and the employee, as well as the nature of the employee’s current work in relation to the work applied for, in order to establish whether in fact a promotion has taken place. It is necessary to consider what unfair conduct is defined as in the context of promotions. It seems that managerial prerogative is at the center of the enquiry into unfair conduct of the employer. Further to the analysis of unfair conduct, various principles that govern both procedural and substantive unfairness are considered. These principles are dealt with separately with reference to case law. Lastly the dispute resolution mechanisms are considered and a brief discussion on remedies is undertaken. The remedies are discussed with reference to case law, as well as the provisions of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 as amended by the Labour Relations Amendment Act 12 of 2002. The broad headings of this article are accordingly unfair labour practices, definition of promotions, unfair conduct of the employer, onus of proof and remedies. It is concluded with the proposition that once an employer has set policies and procedures in place in dealing with promotions, then such an employer should stick to those policies and procedures within the context of the law, as well as within the percepts of the vague and nebulous term of ‘fairness’. Should the employer fail to do so, the majority of cases indicate that such an employer will be guilty of an unfair labour practice relating to promotion.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2004