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
Unfair discrimination in employment
- Gixana-Khambule, Bulelwa Judith
- Authors: Gixana-Khambule, Bulelwa Judith
- Date: 2004
- Subjects: Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:11059 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/359 , Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Description: In this treatise the South African law relating to unfair discrimination is discussed. The development is traced from the previous dispensation and the few pronouncements of the Industrial Court on discrimination in employment. Thereafter the actual provisions in the law presently applicable, including the Constitution is considered. With reference to leading cases the issue of positive discrimination by adopting affirmative action measures is evaluated and reference is made to other defences like inherent requirements for the job and a general fairness defence. The conclusion is reached that South African law is developing to give effect to the notion of substantive equality with a view to eradicate the systematic discrimination of the past.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2004
- Authors: Gixana-Khambule, Bulelwa Judith
- Date: 2004
- Subjects: Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:11059 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/359 , Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Description: In this treatise the South African law relating to unfair discrimination is discussed. The development is traced from the previous dispensation and the few pronouncements of the Industrial Court on discrimination in employment. Thereafter the actual provisions in the law presently applicable, including the Constitution is considered. With reference to leading cases the issue of positive discrimination by adopting affirmative action measures is evaluated and reference is made to other defences like inherent requirements for the job and a general fairness defence. The conclusion is reached that South African law is developing to give effect to the notion of substantive equality with a view to eradicate the systematic discrimination of the past.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2004
Constructive dismissal in labour law
- Van Loggerenberg, Johannes Jurgens
- Authors: Van Loggerenberg, Johannes Jurgens
- Date: 2003
- 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:11054 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/301 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: The history of constructive dismissals in South Africa imitated from the English law in 1986, when an employee successfully challenged the employer on this particular concept after an incident relating a forced resignation. From the literature it is clear that constructive dismissal, as we know it today, originated from our English counterparts. Being a relatively new concept, the South African labour laws caught on at a rapid pace. The leading case on which the South African authors leaned towards was the English case of Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough). In South Africa constructive dismissals were given statutory force in unfair dismissal law and is defined as the coerced or forced termination of a contract of employment resultant in from the conduct of the employer. There are many forms in which constructive dismissals would postulate that could justify an employee to lay claim to constructive dismissal. Examples thereof are the amendment of the contract of employment, rude language and sexual harassment. It is eminent that certain elements should be present before an employee would have reasonable prospects of succeeding with such a claim. Constructive dismissal comes into the equation when an employer behaves in such a manner that eventually and ultimately leads to the employee, being the receiving party, in the employment relationship, to terminate the employment contract. This termination must be the direct result of the conduct of the employer that irreparably frustrated the relationship and made it impossible for the employee to remain in the service of the employer in question. It appears that the courts have taken a firm stance on coerced or forced resignation, in its various forms tantamount to breach of contact, that any sufficiently unreasonable conduct by an employer may justify that the employee to terminate services and lay claim to the fact that he had been constructively dismissed. It needs to be mentioned that the fact that the mere fact that the employer acted in an unreasonable manner would not suffice and it is up to the employee to prove how the conduct of the employer justified the employee to leave and claim that the employer’s conduct resulted in a material or fundamental beach of the employment contract. In dealing with the contingency of the concept of constructive dismissals it has been expressly provided for in numerous systems of labour law. As is seen herein, a constructive dismissal consists in the termination of the employment contract by reason of the employee’s rather than the employer’s own immediate act. The act of the employee is precipitated by earlier conduct on the part of the employer, which conduct may or may not be justified. Various authors and academics endeavoured to defined constructive dismissal and all had the same or at least some of the elements present, to justify constructive dismissal. The most glaring element being the termination of employment as a result of the any conduct that is tantamount to a breach going to the root of the relationship by the employer, that frustrated the relationship between the employer and the employee and rendered it irreparable. The employee resigns or repudiates the employment contract as a result of the employer normally not leaving the employee any other option but to resign. This can also be termed as coerced or forced resignations and are commonly better known as “constructive dismissal”. The employee is deemed to have been dismissed, even though it is the employee who terminated the employment contract. The most important element to mention is the employee terminated the employment contract, ie resigned yet this is regarded as a dismissal, it is however for the employee to first lay a claim at the proper authority and the employee must prove his / her allegation before it can be a constructive dismissal. As will become clear, that the onus of proof is on the employee to show that the termination of employment resulted from the conduct of the employer. Equally true as in all cases of constructive dismissal, including cases of sexual harassment, being a ground for constructive dismissal, the employee must prove that to remain in service would have been unbearable and intolerable. Sexual harassment is one of the most difficult forms of constructive dismissals, in many cases there are no witnesses and the employee either “suffers in silence or opt to place her dignity at stake to prove her case. It seems as though the test is to determine if the employer’s conduct evinced a deliberate and oppressive intention to have the employment terminated and left the employee with only one option that of resignation to protect her interests. Employees have a right to seek statutory relief and needs to be protected. If a coerced or forced resignation had taken place irrespective whether the employee resigned or not. It is against this back drop that constructive dismissals was given legality and are now recognized as one of the four forms of dismissals in terms of the Act.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2003
- Authors: Van Loggerenberg, Johannes Jurgens
- Date: 2003
- 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:11054 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/301 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: The history of constructive dismissals in South Africa imitated from the English law in 1986, when an employee successfully challenged the employer on this particular concept after an incident relating a forced resignation. From the literature it is clear that constructive dismissal, as we know it today, originated from our English counterparts. Being a relatively new concept, the South African labour laws caught on at a rapid pace. The leading case on which the South African authors leaned towards was the English case of Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough). In South Africa constructive dismissals were given statutory force in unfair dismissal law and is defined as the coerced or forced termination of a contract of employment resultant in from the conduct of the employer. There are many forms in which constructive dismissals would postulate that could justify an employee to lay claim to constructive dismissal. Examples thereof are the amendment of the contract of employment, rude language and sexual harassment. It is eminent that certain elements should be present before an employee would have reasonable prospects of succeeding with such a claim. Constructive dismissal comes into the equation when an employer behaves in such a manner that eventually and ultimately leads to the employee, being the receiving party, in the employment relationship, to terminate the employment contract. This termination must be the direct result of the conduct of the employer that irreparably frustrated the relationship and made it impossible for the employee to remain in the service of the employer in question. It appears that the courts have taken a firm stance on coerced or forced resignation, in its various forms tantamount to breach of contact, that any sufficiently unreasonable conduct by an employer may justify that the employee to terminate services and lay claim to the fact that he had been constructively dismissed. It needs to be mentioned that the fact that the mere fact that the employer acted in an unreasonable manner would not suffice and it is up to the employee to prove how the conduct of the employer justified the employee to leave and claim that the employer’s conduct resulted in a material or fundamental beach of the employment contract. In dealing with the contingency of the concept of constructive dismissals it has been expressly provided for in numerous systems of labour law. As is seen herein, a constructive dismissal consists in the termination of the employment contract by reason of the employee’s rather than the employer’s own immediate act. The act of the employee is precipitated by earlier conduct on the part of the employer, which conduct may or may not be justified. Various authors and academics endeavoured to defined constructive dismissal and all had the same or at least some of the elements present, to justify constructive dismissal. The most glaring element being the termination of employment as a result of the any conduct that is tantamount to a breach going to the root of the relationship by the employer, that frustrated the relationship between the employer and the employee and rendered it irreparable. The employee resigns or repudiates the employment contract as a result of the employer normally not leaving the employee any other option but to resign. This can also be termed as coerced or forced resignations and are commonly better known as “constructive dismissal”. The employee is deemed to have been dismissed, even though it is the employee who terminated the employment contract. The most important element to mention is the employee terminated the employment contract, ie resigned yet this is regarded as a dismissal, it is however for the employee to first lay a claim at the proper authority and the employee must prove his / her allegation before it can be a constructive dismissal. As will become clear, that the onus of proof is on the employee to show that the termination of employment resulted from the conduct of the employer. Equally true as in all cases of constructive dismissal, including cases of sexual harassment, being a ground for constructive dismissal, the employee must prove that to remain in service would have been unbearable and intolerable. Sexual harassment is one of the most difficult forms of constructive dismissals, in many cases there are no witnesses and the employee either “suffers in silence or opt to place her dignity at stake to prove her case. It seems as though the test is to determine if the employer’s conduct evinced a deliberate and oppressive intention to have the employment terminated and left the employee with only one option that of resignation to protect her interests. Employees have a right to seek statutory relief and needs to be protected. If a coerced or forced resignation had taken place irrespective whether the employee resigned or not. It is against this back drop that constructive dismissals was given legality and are now recognized as one of the four forms of dismissals in terms of the Act.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2003
Substantive fairness in dismissals for operational requirements cases
- Authors: Camagu, Asanda Pumeza
- 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:10214 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1008114 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor discipline -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Description: Part II of the International Labour Organisation Convention 158 recognises operational requirements of an organisation as a ground for dismissal. Section 213 of the Labour Relations Act describes operational requirements reasons as requirements based on the economic, technological, structural or related needs of an employer. The employer‟s needs in case of operational requirement dismissal must be separated from the other reasons for dismissal, such as misconduct and incapacity. Operational requirements dismissals are governed by section 189 of the LRA. The LRA draws a distinction between small and large scale dismissals and regulates them separately. Section 189 control small scale dismissals, while section 189A pertains to large scale dismissals For substantive fairness of a dismissal for operational requirements, the employer must prove that the said reason is one based on operational requirements of the business. The employer must be able to prove that the reason for the dismissal falls within the statutory definition of operational requirements. Employers are not allowed to use retrenchment to dismiss employees who they believe to have performed unsatisfactorily. This means that employers are not entitled to retrench for ulterior reasons, than those of operational requirements.The Labour Court has held that an employer may not under any situation retrench an employee on a fixed-term contract if the termination takes place before the contract of the employee ends, unless the contract of employment makes provision for termination at an earlier date. Retrenchment in this situation will amount to a breach of contract. Another point of interest in dismissals for operational requirements is that the Labour Relations Act states that it is not unlawful to dismiss a striking employee for reasons based on the employer‟s operational requirements. In relation to the selection criteria to be used during these dismissals, the Labour Relations Act again states that if an agreement cannot be reached between the consulting parties, then the employer must use criteria that are fair and objective.
- Full Text:
- Authors: Camagu, Asanda Pumeza
- 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:10214 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1008114 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor discipline -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Description: Part II of the International Labour Organisation Convention 158 recognises operational requirements of an organisation as a ground for dismissal. Section 213 of the Labour Relations Act describes operational requirements reasons as requirements based on the economic, technological, structural or related needs of an employer. The employer‟s needs in case of operational requirement dismissal must be separated from the other reasons for dismissal, such as misconduct and incapacity. Operational requirements dismissals are governed by section 189 of the LRA. The LRA draws a distinction between small and large scale dismissals and regulates them separately. Section 189 control small scale dismissals, while section 189A pertains to large scale dismissals For substantive fairness of a dismissal for operational requirements, the employer must prove that the said reason is one based on operational requirements of the business. The employer must be able to prove that the reason for the dismissal falls within the statutory definition of operational requirements. Employers are not allowed to use retrenchment to dismiss employees who they believe to have performed unsatisfactorily. This means that employers are not entitled to retrench for ulterior reasons, than those of operational requirements.The Labour Court has held that an employer may not under any situation retrench an employee on a fixed-term contract if the termination takes place before the contract of the employee ends, unless the contract of employment makes provision for termination at an earlier date. Retrenchment in this situation will amount to a breach of contract. Another point of interest in dismissals for operational requirements is that the Labour Relations Act states that it is not unlawful to dismiss a striking employee for reasons based on the employer‟s operational requirements. In relation to the selection criteria to be used during these dismissals, the Labour Relations Act again states that if an agreement cannot be reached between the consulting parties, then the employer must use criteria that are fair and objective.
- Full Text:
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »