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
The effect of labour legislation in the promotion and integration of persons with disabilities in the labour market
- Authors: Cole, Elsabe Cynthia
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: People with disabilities -- Legal status, laws, etc. -- South Africa , People with disabilities -- Employment , Labour market
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:9300 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1014669
- Description: It is argued that a lack of adequate legislation in pre-1994 South Africa resulted in inequality in the workplace and in society in general. The new democracy intended to address this by promulgated legislation and today the South Africa Constitutional and legislative provisions promoting equality are viewed as amongst the most progressive in the world. Conversely, this progressive legislation aimed to protect against discrimination, still seems to fail the very people it intended to promote and protect. The new legislation created awareness of the need for equality; the right of workers to employment – or at least to decent working conditions. The right to equality is accorded to everybody through the Constitution of South Africa. The Bill of Rights is based on the notion of equality before the law, and the prohibition of discrimination on various grounds. Despite this, the perception exist that persons with disabilities as a minority group are still being marginalised and are restricted in their right to exercise the right to participate and make a meaningful contribution to the labour market. This not only seems to be in contradiction with the Constitutional right to choose an occupation, but has wider social and economic consequences. The ethos of equality legislation is to ensure that the workplace is representative of the society we live in. It is understandable that labour as a social phenomenon is not only concerned with workplace related issues but with aspects encompassing the whole of the socio-political and economic scene. South African labour legislation drafted over the last two decades strives to align with the conventions and recommendations of the International Labour Organisations and in terms of the obligations of South Africa as a member state. However, the question prevails: is this legislation adequate to address the discrimination and inequality experienced by persons with disability? If so, why do statistics indicate such high unemployment amongst this group? Yet, there is a growing awareness that persons with disabilities represent enormous, untapped economic potential. According to the ILO report on The Right to Decent Work of Persons with Disabilities (1997), much has been accomplished in the international arena in recent years to improve the lives of persons with disabilities in the workplace. This treatise will attempt to evaluate the efficacy of South African legislation in the promotion and integration of persons with disabilities in the labour market.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
- Authors: Cole, Elsabe Cynthia
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: People with disabilities -- Legal status, laws, etc. -- South Africa , People with disabilities -- Employment , Labour market
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:9300 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1014669
- Description: It is argued that a lack of adequate legislation in pre-1994 South Africa resulted in inequality in the workplace and in society in general. The new democracy intended to address this by promulgated legislation and today the South Africa Constitutional and legislative provisions promoting equality are viewed as amongst the most progressive in the world. Conversely, this progressive legislation aimed to protect against discrimination, still seems to fail the very people it intended to promote and protect. The new legislation created awareness of the need for equality; the right of workers to employment – or at least to decent working conditions. The right to equality is accorded to everybody through the Constitution of South Africa. The Bill of Rights is based on the notion of equality before the law, and the prohibition of discrimination on various grounds. Despite this, the perception exist that persons with disabilities as a minority group are still being marginalised and are restricted in their right to exercise the right to participate and make a meaningful contribution to the labour market. This not only seems to be in contradiction with the Constitutional right to choose an occupation, but has wider social and economic consequences. The ethos of equality legislation is to ensure that the workplace is representative of the society we live in. It is understandable that labour as a social phenomenon is not only concerned with workplace related issues but with aspects encompassing the whole of the socio-political and economic scene. South African labour legislation drafted over the last two decades strives to align with the conventions and recommendations of the International Labour Organisations and in terms of the obligations of South Africa as a member state. However, the question prevails: is this legislation adequate to address the discrimination and inequality experienced by persons with disability? If so, why do statistics indicate such high unemployment amongst this group? Yet, there is a growing awareness that persons with disabilities represent enormous, untapped economic potential. According to the ILO report on The Right to Decent Work of Persons with Disabilities (1997), much has been accomplished in the international arena in recent years to improve the lives of persons with disabilities in the workplace. This treatise will attempt to evaluate the efficacy of South African legislation in the promotion and integration of persons with disabilities in the labour market.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
Aspects of constructive dismissal
- Authors: Diedericks, Shaun Sylvester
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: Labor courts , Employees -- Dismissal of
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10269 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1011641 , Labor courts , Employees -- Dismissal of
- Description: Before the introduction of the concept of constructive dismissal in the LRA, the old industrial courts relied on the strides made in this field by the English and American courts. Constructive dismissal is the fourth type of dismissal and it is instituted by the employee through his/her resignation, unlike the other three types of dismissals which is instituted by the employer. Section 186(e) of the LRA defines constructive dismissal as the termination a contract of employment with or without notice by the employee because the employer made continued employment intolerable for the employee. With a fundamental breach in the contract of employment employees have a choice to either base their claims on constructive dismissal in the LRA or repudiation of the contract in common law, depending on the circumstances. Landmark judgments like Jooste v Transnet and Pretoria Society for the Care of the Retarded v Loots set the tone for constructive dismissal law in South Africa. It introduced the concept of intolerability as well as looking at the employer‟s conduct as a whole and judging it reasonable. The test for constructive dismissal throughout the evolution of case law in South Africa has not changed. Constructive Dismissal under the common law is also discussed in depth by looking at the landmark judgment of Murray v Minister of Defence. Sexual Harassment in the workplace is of a growing concern. If continued sexual harassment makes continued employment intolerable, the employee subjected to the harassment has the option of resigning and approaching the CCMA or bargaining councils, and claim that they have been constructively dismissed. Cases such as Payten v Premier Chemicals and Gerber v Algorax (Pty) Ltd really shows us how difficult it is to proof constructive dismissal as a result of sexual harassment because in most instances there won‟t be witnesses and it would be a case of he said, she said. These cases also show us that it can be proven based on a balance of probabilities. Grogan states that in dismissal proceedings, the onus is on the employees to prove that they were in fact dismissed and on the employer to show that the dismissal was fair. Section 192 of the LRA places another burden on the employee that requires him to not only prove the existence of a dismissal, but also that the conduct of the employer was intolerable. Unlike normal dismissal cases, commissioners generally award compensation as a remedy for constructive dismissal. A claim by an employee for reinstatement would be contradicting a claim that the employment relationship became intolerable and an award for reinstatement would be very inappropriate in a case of constructive dismissal. In short, unlike a normal dismissal, a constructive dismissal is a termination of the employment contract by the employee rather than the employer‟s own immediate act.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
- Authors: Diedericks, Shaun Sylvester
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: Labor courts , Employees -- Dismissal of
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10269 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1011641 , Labor courts , Employees -- Dismissal of
- Description: Before the introduction of the concept of constructive dismissal in the LRA, the old industrial courts relied on the strides made in this field by the English and American courts. Constructive dismissal is the fourth type of dismissal and it is instituted by the employee through his/her resignation, unlike the other three types of dismissals which is instituted by the employer. Section 186(e) of the LRA defines constructive dismissal as the termination a contract of employment with or without notice by the employee because the employer made continued employment intolerable for the employee. With a fundamental breach in the contract of employment employees have a choice to either base their claims on constructive dismissal in the LRA or repudiation of the contract in common law, depending on the circumstances. Landmark judgments like Jooste v Transnet and Pretoria Society for the Care of the Retarded v Loots set the tone for constructive dismissal law in South Africa. It introduced the concept of intolerability as well as looking at the employer‟s conduct as a whole and judging it reasonable. The test for constructive dismissal throughout the evolution of case law in South Africa has not changed. Constructive Dismissal under the common law is also discussed in depth by looking at the landmark judgment of Murray v Minister of Defence. Sexual Harassment in the workplace is of a growing concern. If continued sexual harassment makes continued employment intolerable, the employee subjected to the harassment has the option of resigning and approaching the CCMA or bargaining councils, and claim that they have been constructively dismissed. Cases such as Payten v Premier Chemicals and Gerber v Algorax (Pty) Ltd really shows us how difficult it is to proof constructive dismissal as a result of sexual harassment because in most instances there won‟t be witnesses and it would be a case of he said, she said. These cases also show us that it can be proven based on a balance of probabilities. Grogan states that in dismissal proceedings, the onus is on the employees to prove that they were in fact dismissed and on the employer to show that the dismissal was fair. Section 192 of the LRA places another burden on the employee that requires him to not only prove the existence of a dismissal, but also that the conduct of the employer was intolerable. Unlike normal dismissal cases, commissioners generally award compensation as a remedy for constructive dismissal. A claim by an employee for reinstatement would be contradicting a claim that the employment relationship became intolerable and an award for reinstatement would be very inappropriate in a case of constructive dismissal. In short, unlike a normal dismissal, a constructive dismissal is a termination of the employment contract by the employee rather than the employer‟s own immediate act.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
The legal consequences of failure to give effect to affirmative action measures
- Authors: Burton, Colin Peter
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: Affirmative action programs -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Affirmative action programs -- Law and legislation
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10239 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1012904
- Description: In South African law, affirmative action has been a very controversial topic over the years. 5 Controversial issues such as perceptions and reactions of affirmative action in the South African context are varied. 6 These reactions are often categorised as politically explosive and emotionally charged. 7 Most people fear the implications of affirmative action, more specifically the impact thereof on their individual positions within the workplace.8 Those who feel threatened by these measures, tend to question the political and ethical legitimacy thereof. 9 Those who stand to benefit from these measures often dislike the labelling associated with these measures. 10 Confusion also exits in greater society about relationship between the equal opportunity, black advancement, affirmative action and diversity management paradigms and related practices. The sources of conflicting reactions to affirmative action stem from individual, group and cultural believes and values which were both shaped by the political realities of the previous regime and the ideals people cherish for themselves in the current dispensation. Colonialist and apartheid laws, policies and practices which were racist and patriarchal provided for separate societies for blacks, whites, Indians and coloureds. 11 At this point in time separate labour systems with job reservation were applicable for whites. There were also wage differentiations between white and black people and between sexes. 12 Furthermore, disabled people were kept dependant and there were also discriminatory legislative provisions against them. 13 This history of systemic discrimination and its resulting inequality and entrenched disadvantage for black, coloured and Indian women and the disabled, was and still is well-known both nationally and internationally. 14 Internationally, apartheid has been extensively disapproved. Examples hereof include the United Nations that declared apartheid and its impact a “crime against humanity” and a negation of the United Nations Charter, 15 expressions of censure culminated in the adoption of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crimes of Apartheid16 and the expulsion of South Africa from the United Nations and its agencies. 17 Nationally, on the other hand, South Africa promulgated several legislative pieces namely, the Constitution, the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 and the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
- Authors: Burton, Colin Peter
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: Affirmative action programs -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Affirmative action programs -- Law and legislation
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10239 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1012904
- Description: In South African law, affirmative action has been a very controversial topic over the years. 5 Controversial issues such as perceptions and reactions of affirmative action in the South African context are varied. 6 These reactions are often categorised as politically explosive and emotionally charged. 7 Most people fear the implications of affirmative action, more specifically the impact thereof on their individual positions within the workplace.8 Those who feel threatened by these measures, tend to question the political and ethical legitimacy thereof. 9 Those who stand to benefit from these measures often dislike the labelling associated with these measures. 10 Confusion also exits in greater society about relationship between the equal opportunity, black advancement, affirmative action and diversity management paradigms and related practices. The sources of conflicting reactions to affirmative action stem from individual, group and cultural believes and values which were both shaped by the political realities of the previous regime and the ideals people cherish for themselves in the current dispensation. Colonialist and apartheid laws, policies and practices which were racist and patriarchal provided for separate societies for blacks, whites, Indians and coloureds. 11 At this point in time separate labour systems with job reservation were applicable for whites. There were also wage differentiations between white and black people and between sexes. 12 Furthermore, disabled people were kept dependant and there were also discriminatory legislative provisions against them. 13 This history of systemic discrimination and its resulting inequality and entrenched disadvantage for black, coloured and Indian women and the disabled, was and still is well-known both nationally and internationally. 14 Internationally, apartheid has been extensively disapproved. Examples hereof include the United Nations that declared apartheid and its impact a “crime against humanity” and a negation of the United Nations Charter, 15 expressions of censure culminated in the adoption of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crimes of Apartheid16 and the expulsion of South Africa from the United Nations and its agencies. 17 Nationally, on the other hand, South Africa promulgated several legislative pieces namely, the Constitution, the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 and the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013