Application of Section 189 and Section 189A of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 as amended
- Authors: Rune, Mawethu Siyabulela
- Date: 2010
- Subjects: Downsizing of organizations -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Employees -- Dismissal of -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10220 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/1281 , Downsizing of organizations -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Employees -- Dismissal of -- South Africa
- Description: Economies worldwide have become more integrated and competitive due to the phenomenon of globalisation and its antecedents, which are improved technological communication, the use of technology in production, ever improving management of skills as well as standards of education. Amongst the consequences have been changing demands and rising expectations in terms of employee remuneration, job security and conditions of work. This has at the same time been accompanied by employers expecting greater profit. Against this backdrop, this treatise seeks to interrogate and to explain the processes that should constitute fair, rational and justifiable employee dismissal for operational purposes. This is done bearing in mind the global economic crisis and its impact on employees. The treatise constitutes an attempt to carve a cushioning mechanism for employees in the midst of the global economic storm. We consider the inadequacies of common law principles. We also submit that section 189 in its present form and its application by courts do not provide for substantive fairness interrogation when dealing with dismissal for operational reasons. We explore the legislative framework, interpretation by leading academics as well as applications by courts of section 189A, which prescribes that if dismissal is based on operational reasons, consideration must not only be based on substantive and procedural fairness but also that proper consideration of alternatives must have been explored before dismissal is effected.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2010
- Authors: Rune, Mawethu Siyabulela
- Date: 2010
- Subjects: Downsizing of organizations -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Employees -- Dismissal of -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10220 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/1281 , Downsizing of organizations -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Employees -- Dismissal of -- South Africa
- Description: Economies worldwide have become more integrated and competitive due to the phenomenon of globalisation and its antecedents, which are improved technological communication, the use of technology in production, ever improving management of skills as well as standards of education. Amongst the consequences have been changing demands and rising expectations in terms of employee remuneration, job security and conditions of work. This has at the same time been accompanied by employers expecting greater profit. Against this backdrop, this treatise seeks to interrogate and to explain the processes that should constitute fair, rational and justifiable employee dismissal for operational purposes. This is done bearing in mind the global economic crisis and its impact on employees. The treatise constitutes an attempt to carve a cushioning mechanism for employees in the midst of the global economic storm. We consider the inadequacies of common law principles. We also submit that section 189 in its present form and its application by courts do not provide for substantive fairness interrogation when dealing with dismissal for operational reasons. We explore the legislative framework, interpretation by leading academics as well as applications by courts of section 189A, which prescribes that if dismissal is based on operational reasons, consideration must not only be based on substantive and procedural fairness but also that proper consideration of alternatives must have been explored before dismissal is effected.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2010
Unfair discrimination and dismissal based on age
- Thompson, David Martin Ogilvie
- Authors: Thompson, David Martin Ogilvie
- Date: 2010
- Subjects: Age discrimination in employment -- South Africa , Employees -- Dismissal of -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10218 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/1287 , Age discrimination in employment -- South Africa , Employees -- Dismissal of -- South Africa
- Description: Section 187(2)(b) of the Labour Relations Act sets out certain justifications for what may seem to be unfair discrimination in the workplace. The purpose of this note is to discuss the provisions of Age Discrimination, with specific focus on the rights of older employees, who have reached, what some might term, the ‘normal or agreed retirement age’. In the discuss which follows reference will be made to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa1 in order to investigate the provisions of our new democratic era, and what is said therein about discrimination, and age discrimination in particular. In our new Constitutional dispensation there have also been circumstances where certain kinds of discrimination have become accepted on society, for example Affirmative Action, and an enquiry into the difference between discrimination and differentiation will therefore also be necessary. The provisions of the Employment Equity Act,2 which deal specifically with eliminating unfair discrimination in the workplace, and the Labour Relations Act,3 which deals primarily with the rights of employees, employers and trade unions, and seeks to harmonize employer-employee relations will be discussed wherein specific reference will be made to section 187(2)(b) of the LRA. A further discussion will outline the circumstances of what is meant by dismissal in the context of age based dismissals, and whether such a dismissal is infact a dismissal and whether, within the requirements of the LRA such a dismissal, or termination of employment contract, is infact fair. Furthermore, a comparative perspective of other jurisdictions will give a more complete understanding of the issue of age-based dismissals within the current context. However, to refer to legislation and foreign decisions alone, while being of important reference, is not enough and a enquiry into our own case law will be of significant importance to determine a path of direction one can expect when faced with a question of dismissals based on mandatory retirement ages, and in particular, a dismissal which has been so executed with recourse to section 187(2)(b) of the LRA. In the various cases the reasoning and rationale behind the decision making will shed light on a seemingly unresolved area of labour law, and in reading further not only in the judgments but also in various articles, one will see that there are many arguments for and against the use of a mandatory retirement age, the most important of which will be highlighted.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2010
- Authors: Thompson, David Martin Ogilvie
- Date: 2010
- Subjects: Age discrimination in employment -- South Africa , Employees -- Dismissal of -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10218 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/1287 , Age discrimination in employment -- South Africa , Employees -- Dismissal of -- South Africa
- Description: Section 187(2)(b) of the Labour Relations Act sets out certain justifications for what may seem to be unfair discrimination in the workplace. The purpose of this note is to discuss the provisions of Age Discrimination, with specific focus on the rights of older employees, who have reached, what some might term, the ‘normal or agreed retirement age’. In the discuss which follows reference will be made to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa1 in order to investigate the provisions of our new democratic era, and what is said therein about discrimination, and age discrimination in particular. In our new Constitutional dispensation there have also been circumstances where certain kinds of discrimination have become accepted on society, for example Affirmative Action, and an enquiry into the difference between discrimination and differentiation will therefore also be necessary. The provisions of the Employment Equity Act,2 which deal specifically with eliminating unfair discrimination in the workplace, and the Labour Relations Act,3 which deals primarily with the rights of employees, employers and trade unions, and seeks to harmonize employer-employee relations will be discussed wherein specific reference will be made to section 187(2)(b) of the LRA. A further discussion will outline the circumstances of what is meant by dismissal in the context of age based dismissals, and whether such a dismissal is infact a dismissal and whether, within the requirements of the LRA such a dismissal, or termination of employment contract, is infact fair. Furthermore, a comparative perspective of other jurisdictions will give a more complete understanding of the issue of age-based dismissals within the current context. However, to refer to legislation and foreign decisions alone, while being of important reference, is not enough and a enquiry into our own case law will be of significant importance to determine a path of direction one can expect when faced with a question of dismissals based on mandatory retirement ages, and in particular, a dismissal which has been so executed with recourse to section 187(2)(b) of the LRA. In the various cases the reasoning and rationale behind the decision making will shed light on a seemingly unresolved area of labour law, and in reading further not only in the judgments but also in various articles, one will see that there are many arguments for and against the use of a mandatory retirement age, the most important of which will be highlighted.
- 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
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »