Legal representation at internal disciplinary enquiries: the CCMA and bargaining councils
- Authors: Webb, Brandon
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Right to counsel -- South Africa , Dispute resolution (Law) -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , South Africa -- Commission for Conciliation, Mediation, and Arbitration
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10299 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1021066
- Description: The right to legal representation at internal disciplinary hearings and arbitration proceedings at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), and bargaining councils, where the reason for dismissal relates to misconduct or incapacity is a topic that is raised continuously and often debated. Despite no amendments to labour legislation pertaining to the issue at hand there was however a recent Supreme Court of Appeal judgment. This judgment alters one’s view and clarifies the uncertainties that were created around Rule 25 of the CCMA rules, it also brings a different perspective to the matter, but it will however continue to ignite significant interest. There is no automatic right to legal representation at disciplinary hearings, at the CCMA, and at bargaining councils where disputes involve conduct or capacity and this is the very reason why it is a contentious matter for all parties to grapple with. The dismissal of an employee for misconduct may not be significant to the employer, but the employee’s job is his major asset, and losing his employment is a serious matter to contend with. Lawyers are said to make the process legalistic and expensive, and are blamed for causing delays in the proceedings due to their unavailability and the approach that they adopt. Allowing legal representation places individual employees and small businesses on the back foot because of the costs. Section 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996, provides everyone with the right to fair labour practices, and section 185 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 gives effect to this right and specifies, amongst others, that an employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed. At internal disciplinary hearings, the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 is silent as to what the employee’s rights are with regards to legal representation and the general rule is that legal representation is not permitted, unless the employer’s disciplinary code and procedure or the employee’s contract allows for it, but usually an employee may only be represented by a fellow employee or trade union representative, but not by a legal representative. In MEC: Department of Finance, Economic Affairs and Tourism, Northern Province v Mahumani, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that there exists no right in terms of the common law to legal representation in tribunals other than in courts of law. However, both the common law and PAJA concede that in certain situations it may be unfair to deny a party legal representation. Currently the position in South Africa is that an employee facing disciplinary proceedings can put forward a request for legal representation and the chairperson of the disciplinary hearing will have the discretion to allow or refuse the request. In Hamata v Chairperson, Peninsula Technikon Internal Disciplinary Committee, the Supreme Court of Appeal found that the South African law does not recognise an absolute right to legal representation in fora other than courts of law, and a constitutional right to legal representation only arises in respect of criminal matters.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
- Authors: Webb, Brandon
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Right to counsel -- South Africa , Dispute resolution (Law) -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , South Africa -- Commission for Conciliation, Mediation, and Arbitration
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10299 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1021066
- Description: The right to legal representation at internal disciplinary hearings and arbitration proceedings at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), and bargaining councils, where the reason for dismissal relates to misconduct or incapacity is a topic that is raised continuously and often debated. Despite no amendments to labour legislation pertaining to the issue at hand there was however a recent Supreme Court of Appeal judgment. This judgment alters one’s view and clarifies the uncertainties that were created around Rule 25 of the CCMA rules, it also brings a different perspective to the matter, but it will however continue to ignite significant interest. There is no automatic right to legal representation at disciplinary hearings, at the CCMA, and at bargaining councils where disputes involve conduct or capacity and this is the very reason why it is a contentious matter for all parties to grapple with. The dismissal of an employee for misconduct may not be significant to the employer, but the employee’s job is his major asset, and losing his employment is a serious matter to contend with. Lawyers are said to make the process legalistic and expensive, and are blamed for causing delays in the proceedings due to their unavailability and the approach that they adopt. Allowing legal representation places individual employees and small businesses on the back foot because of the costs. Section 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996, provides everyone with the right to fair labour practices, and section 185 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 gives effect to this right and specifies, amongst others, that an employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed. At internal disciplinary hearings, the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 is silent as to what the employee’s rights are with regards to legal representation and the general rule is that legal representation is not permitted, unless the employer’s disciplinary code and procedure or the employee’s contract allows for it, but usually an employee may only be represented by a fellow employee or trade union representative, but not by a legal representative. In MEC: Department of Finance, Economic Affairs and Tourism, Northern Province v Mahumani, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that there exists no right in terms of the common law to legal representation in tribunals other than in courts of law. However, both the common law and PAJA concede that in certain situations it may be unfair to deny a party legal representation. Currently the position in South Africa is that an employee facing disciplinary proceedings can put forward a request for legal representation and the chairperson of the disciplinary hearing will have the discretion to allow or refuse the request. In Hamata v Chairperson, Peninsula Technikon Internal Disciplinary Committee, the Supreme Court of Appeal found that the South African law does not recognise an absolute right to legal representation in fora other than courts of law, and a constitutional right to legal representation only arises in respect of criminal matters.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
Substantive equality and the defence of affirmative-action
- Keith-Bandath, Rasheed Ethan
- Authors: Keith-Bandath, Rasheed Ethan
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Equality before the law -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/3899 , vital:20474
- Description: Giving effect to the constitutional right to equality and the peculiar nature thereof in a heterogeneous society such as South Africa has proved to be a perplexing task. This is apparent when analyzing case law on the subject which demonstrates that our courts are regularly confronted with complex equality claims, and as a consequence, naturally have to make difficult decisions which in turn contribute toward our emerging and developing equality jurisprudence and ultimately the achievement of the constitutional standard of equality. This treatise considers substantive equality as a species of equality in the workplace and the defence of affirmative-action justification in terms of section 6 of the Employment Equity Act. In doing so, it outlines the seemingly peculiar application of affirmative action in a society that was once divided along racial and gender lines, a society that has once experienced one of the most severe forms of racial discrimination in the form of apartheid and its associated laws, policies and practices. This oppressive political regime had the effect of entrenching a deep legacy of racism, deprivation, exclusion and discrimination into the social fabric of society, which in turn had a disproportionate impact on the majority of people or categories of people relative to an elite minority. The legacy of this oppressive political system remains alarmingly evident today. The treatise reveals the challenges and difficulties a society faces in attempting to break with past patterns of disadvantage and its efforts to build a society that is non-racist, non-sexist, socially just and inclusive. The Constitution with its transformative vision should be considered the genesis of this credible and abiding process of redress. It is this exercise of redress coupled with the Constitution’s transformative mandate that raises difficult issues of restoration and reparation for past injustice, and the most appropriate and accommodating manner to do so. In addition to the Constitution, Parliament has enacted national legislation as a transformative agent in the workplace. The EEA as a legislative instrument was designed to give effect to the constitutional right to equality in the workplace. It emphatically prohibits unfair discrimination, but also obliges designated employers to implement affirmative-action measures. For such measures not to be unfairly discriminatory, they must be consistent with the purpose of the EEA. A plain reading of the EEA reveals that it does not provide sufficient guidelines for valid affirmative action. However, the EEA provides an interpretive injunction in that it must be interpreted in light of the Constitution and international law. In this regard the Constitutional Court in Minister of Finance v Van Heerden 1 in interpreting the Constitution, developed a test to assess whether a restitutionary measure such as affirmative action is in fact and in law a valid measure. To date this test is generally not followed, despite the authority of the judgment. In this regard, the courts have developed sound, but sometimes inconsistent principles and standards to test for the validity of affirmative action and to adjudge whether such measures are compliant with the Act. The test has also recently been reaffirmed in the recent judgment of South African Police Service v Solidarity obo Barnard.2 It is anticipated that affirmative-action case law will henceforth develop along the same lines. In this we appreciate judicial guidance and supervision in interpreting and pronouncing upon the legitimacy and validity of affirmative-action measures.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
- Authors: Keith-Bandath, Rasheed Ethan
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Equality before the law -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/3899 , vital:20474
- Description: Giving effect to the constitutional right to equality and the peculiar nature thereof in a heterogeneous society such as South Africa has proved to be a perplexing task. This is apparent when analyzing case law on the subject which demonstrates that our courts are regularly confronted with complex equality claims, and as a consequence, naturally have to make difficult decisions which in turn contribute toward our emerging and developing equality jurisprudence and ultimately the achievement of the constitutional standard of equality. This treatise considers substantive equality as a species of equality in the workplace and the defence of affirmative-action justification in terms of section 6 of the Employment Equity Act. In doing so, it outlines the seemingly peculiar application of affirmative action in a society that was once divided along racial and gender lines, a society that has once experienced one of the most severe forms of racial discrimination in the form of apartheid and its associated laws, policies and practices. This oppressive political regime had the effect of entrenching a deep legacy of racism, deprivation, exclusion and discrimination into the social fabric of society, which in turn had a disproportionate impact on the majority of people or categories of people relative to an elite minority. The legacy of this oppressive political system remains alarmingly evident today. The treatise reveals the challenges and difficulties a society faces in attempting to break with past patterns of disadvantage and its efforts to build a society that is non-racist, non-sexist, socially just and inclusive. The Constitution with its transformative vision should be considered the genesis of this credible and abiding process of redress. It is this exercise of redress coupled with the Constitution’s transformative mandate that raises difficult issues of restoration and reparation for past injustice, and the most appropriate and accommodating manner to do so. In addition to the Constitution, Parliament has enacted national legislation as a transformative agent in the workplace. The EEA as a legislative instrument was designed to give effect to the constitutional right to equality in the workplace. It emphatically prohibits unfair discrimination, but also obliges designated employers to implement affirmative-action measures. For such measures not to be unfairly discriminatory, they must be consistent with the purpose of the EEA. A plain reading of the EEA reveals that it does not provide sufficient guidelines for valid affirmative action. However, the EEA provides an interpretive injunction in that it must be interpreted in light of the Constitution and international law. In this regard the Constitutional Court in Minister of Finance v Van Heerden 1 in interpreting the Constitution, developed a test to assess whether a restitutionary measure such as affirmative action is in fact and in law a valid measure. To date this test is generally not followed, despite the authority of the judgment. In this regard, the courts have developed sound, but sometimes inconsistent principles and standards to test for the validity of affirmative action and to adjudge whether such measures are compliant with the Act. The test has also recently been reaffirmed in the recent judgment of South African Police Service v Solidarity obo Barnard.2 It is anticipated that affirmative-action case law will henceforth develop along the same lines. In this we appreciate judicial guidance and supervision in interpreting and pronouncing upon the legitimacy and validity of affirmative-action measures.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
The effects of labour law on small firms in South Africa : perceptions of employers in the hospitality sector in Pretoria, Gauteng
- Authors: MacNeill, Jessica Dawn
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Small business -- South Africa -- Pretoria , Small business -- South Africa -- Pretoria -- Personnel management , Hospitality industry -- South Africa -- Pretoria -- Personnel management , Manpower policy -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MSocSc
- Identifier: vital:3405 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1018934
- Description: The South African government has attempted to find a balance of interests between the employer and the employee by the introduction of the Labour Relations Act in 1995 and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act in 1997. It is critical to the health of the South African economy that these labour laws do not impact small businesses to the extent that the Gross Domestic Product of the country is negatively affected. There are conflicting reports as to how these labour laws affect small businesses. It is therefore important for government to be able to understand, define and measure the impact of its labour laws on small businesses, in order for it to strategise corrective measures, which may include reconsidering the application of the legislative directive, regulated flexibility, if required. The study was limited in the sense that it was solely based on evidence collected from employers. An interpretivist approach was applied as a research methodology to data collected through in-depth interviews. The main findings of the empirical analysis demonstrate that labour legislation does not heavily impact small firms. It was thus determined that extensive measures were not needed with regard to correcting the framework of regulated flexibility.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
- Authors: MacNeill, Jessica Dawn
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Small business -- South Africa -- Pretoria , Small business -- South Africa -- Pretoria -- Personnel management , Hospitality industry -- South Africa -- Pretoria -- Personnel management , Manpower policy -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MSocSc
- Identifier: vital:3405 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1018934
- Description: The South African government has attempted to find a balance of interests between the employer and the employee by the introduction of the Labour Relations Act in 1995 and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act in 1997. It is critical to the health of the South African economy that these labour laws do not impact small businesses to the extent that the Gross Domestic Product of the country is negatively affected. There are conflicting reports as to how these labour laws affect small businesses. It is therefore important for government to be able to understand, define and measure the impact of its labour laws on small businesses, in order for it to strategise corrective measures, which may include reconsidering the application of the legislative directive, regulated flexibility, if required. The study was limited in the sense that it was solely based on evidence collected from employers. An interpretivist approach was applied as a research methodology to data collected through in-depth interviews. The main findings of the empirical analysis demonstrate that labour legislation does not heavily impact small firms. It was thus determined that extensive measures were not needed with regard to correcting the framework of regulated flexibility.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
The programmatic enforcement of affirmative action
- Authors: Ncume, Ali Zuko
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Affirmative action programs -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/5521 , vital:20873
- Description: Historically, racism was deeply rooted in the workplace in South Africa where white people were largely afforded better opportunities than their black counterparts. This position changed after South Africa became a democratic country. In the new South Africa, legislation has been adopted to combat unfair discrimination. This legislation is founded upon the equality clause contained in section 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Section 9 prohibits unfair direct or indirect discrimination against any person on any of the listed grounds. It also makes provision for protection against unfair discrimination on unlisted grounds. The Employment Equity Act was enacted to bring equality to the workplace and to give effect to section 9(2) of the constitution. The Employment Equity Act promotes equal opportunities and fair treatment and seeks to eliminate unfair discrimination. Section 6 of the Employment Equity Act contains the main thrust of the Act’s prohibition against unfair discrimination. However not all discrimination is unfair. Section 6(2) of the Employment Equity Act provides that discrimination based on the inherent requirements of a job or in terms of affirmative action measures will not be unfair. This section implies that there are grounds of justification which may cause discrimination to be fair. These grounds are affirmative action and inherent requirements of a job. Affirmative action is a purposeful and planned placement and development of competent or potentially competent persons in or to positions from which they were debarred in the past. Affirmative action is an attempt to redress past population, on local and national level. One of the requirements of affirmative action in South Africa is that it must target persons who have been discriminated by unfair discrimination in the past. There are affirmative action measures incorporated in the Employment Equity Act. There exists also a designed programmatic enforcement of affirmative action measures.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
- Authors: Ncume, Ali Zuko
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Affirmative action programs -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/5521 , vital:20873
- Description: Historically, racism was deeply rooted in the workplace in South Africa where white people were largely afforded better opportunities than their black counterparts. This position changed after South Africa became a democratic country. In the new South Africa, legislation has been adopted to combat unfair discrimination. This legislation is founded upon the equality clause contained in section 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Section 9 prohibits unfair direct or indirect discrimination against any person on any of the listed grounds. It also makes provision for protection against unfair discrimination on unlisted grounds. The Employment Equity Act was enacted to bring equality to the workplace and to give effect to section 9(2) of the constitution. The Employment Equity Act promotes equal opportunities and fair treatment and seeks to eliminate unfair discrimination. Section 6 of the Employment Equity Act contains the main thrust of the Act’s prohibition against unfair discrimination. However not all discrimination is unfair. Section 6(2) of the Employment Equity Act provides that discrimination based on the inherent requirements of a job or in terms of affirmative action measures will not be unfair. This section implies that there are grounds of justification which may cause discrimination to be fair. These grounds are affirmative action and inherent requirements of a job. Affirmative action is a purposeful and planned placement and development of competent or potentially competent persons in or to positions from which they were debarred in the past. Affirmative action is an attempt to redress past population, on local and national level. One of the requirements of affirmative action in South Africa is that it must target persons who have been discriminated by unfair discrimination in the past. There are affirmative action measures incorporated in the Employment Equity Act. There exists also a designed programmatic enforcement of affirmative action measures.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
The requirement of "bumping" in operational-requirement dismissals
- Authors: Strydom, Wynand Wilhelmus
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/5896 , vital:21009
- Description: This treatise interrogates the concept of bumping and commences with the background and rationale to the study. It poses a problem statement and sets out the aims and objectives it intends to achieve by virtue of specific research questions identified in the first chapter. The second chapter deals with the history and origin of the concept of bumping whereafter it elaborates on the evolution of bumping in the South African labour-law context and it furthermore introduces the retrenchment guidelines as drafted by Halton Cheadle in 1985. A review and reappraisal of the retrenchment guidelines by Andre van Niekerk are also raised in the second chapter. This is followed by a discussion on the aspects relating to fair selection criteria as pronounced by South African labour-law jurisprudence and deals specifically with the concept of LIFO and the employment universe. The third chapter also raises the various forms of bumping, as well as applicable limitations thereto. Following an in-depth look at the South African courts’ interpretation of bumping-related scenarios, a comparison with international standards is launched whereby relevant ILO recommendations are used as reference. An interpretation of United Kingdom case law is discussed, whereafter it is compared with the South African approach. The fifth chapter deals with the legislative requirements for fair dismissals and fair retrenchment dismissals in particular. The nexus between substantive and procedural fairness requirements is highlighted and the remainder of the fifth chapter deals with procedural fairness requirements which would be applicable in bumping-related retrenchment scenarios. The final chapter briefly alludes to whether bumping should be categorised as a genuine alternative to retrenchment, or merely as an extension of LIFO as a selection criterion. The treatise concludes with procedural recommendations in dealing with bumped employees in the form of retrenchment guidelines for consultations with employees affected by bumping.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
- Authors: Strydom, Wynand Wilhelmus
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/5896 , vital:21009
- Description: This treatise interrogates the concept of bumping and commences with the background and rationale to the study. It poses a problem statement and sets out the aims and objectives it intends to achieve by virtue of specific research questions identified in the first chapter. The second chapter deals with the history and origin of the concept of bumping whereafter it elaborates on the evolution of bumping in the South African labour-law context and it furthermore introduces the retrenchment guidelines as drafted by Halton Cheadle in 1985. A review and reappraisal of the retrenchment guidelines by Andre van Niekerk are also raised in the second chapter. This is followed by a discussion on the aspects relating to fair selection criteria as pronounced by South African labour-law jurisprudence and deals specifically with the concept of LIFO and the employment universe. The third chapter also raises the various forms of bumping, as well as applicable limitations thereto. Following an in-depth look at the South African courts’ interpretation of bumping-related scenarios, a comparison with international standards is launched whereby relevant ILO recommendations are used as reference. An interpretation of United Kingdom case law is discussed, whereafter it is compared with the South African approach. The fifth chapter deals with the legislative requirements for fair dismissals and fair retrenchment dismissals in particular. The nexus between substantive and procedural fairness requirements is highlighted and the remainder of the fifth chapter deals with procedural fairness requirements which would be applicable in bumping-related retrenchment scenarios. The final chapter briefly alludes to whether bumping should be categorised as a genuine alternative to retrenchment, or merely as an extension of LIFO as a selection criterion. The treatise concludes with procedural recommendations in dealing with bumped employees in the form of retrenchment guidelines for consultations with employees affected by bumping.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
The unfair labour practice relating to benefits
- Authors: Timothy, Andrea Francis
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Employee fringe benefits -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10259 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1021157
- Description: The meaning of the term “benefits” in the context of unfair labour practice jurisprudence, having previously been unsettled for more than a decade, has now been settled by the Labour Appeal Court in the Apollo.1 Prior to Apollo,2 our courts have struggled to adopt a stance to maintain the distinction between disputes of rights and disputes of interest as separate compartments. The prevalent view at that stage was that, in order for an employee to lodge a dispute at the CCMA or Bargaining Council the employee would have to show that he or she had a right to the benefit that arises by virtue of contract, statute or collective agreement, failing which the CCMA or a Bargaining Council would not have the jurisdiction to determine the dispute, in which case it may constitute a dispute of interest and the employee will have to embark on an industrial action to secure a benefit. Apollo3 endorsed a previous decision of the Labour Court,4 i.e. by placing “benefits” into the following two categories: (1) Where the dispute is about a demand by employees concerning their benefits, it can be settled by way of industrial action. (2) Where the dispute concerns the fairness of the employer's conduct, it must be settled by way of adjudication or arbitration. As a result of the above categorisation, the CCMA or Bargaining Council may adjudicate a dispute relating to benefits where there is a pre-existing benefit and the employer refuses to comply with its obligation towards the employer in that regard. It may also adjudicate disputes relating to the provision of a car allowance (i.e. where the employer retains the discretion to grant or withhold the allowance) and disputes relating to the provision of bonuses (i.e. where the employer retains the discretion to grant or withhold the bonus). In this treatise, I set out the history and development of the legislation in relation to the concept of “benefits” (in the context of unfair labour practice) so as to understand how our Labour Appeal Court has now come to settle the issues above.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
- Authors: Timothy, Andrea Francis
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Employee fringe benefits -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10259 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1021157
- Description: The meaning of the term “benefits” in the context of unfair labour practice jurisprudence, having previously been unsettled for more than a decade, has now been settled by the Labour Appeal Court in the Apollo.1 Prior to Apollo,2 our courts have struggled to adopt a stance to maintain the distinction between disputes of rights and disputes of interest as separate compartments. The prevalent view at that stage was that, in order for an employee to lodge a dispute at the CCMA or Bargaining Council the employee would have to show that he or she had a right to the benefit that arises by virtue of contract, statute or collective agreement, failing which the CCMA or a Bargaining Council would not have the jurisdiction to determine the dispute, in which case it may constitute a dispute of interest and the employee will have to embark on an industrial action to secure a benefit. Apollo3 endorsed a previous decision of the Labour Court,4 i.e. by placing “benefits” into the following two categories: (1) Where the dispute is about a demand by employees concerning their benefits, it can be settled by way of industrial action. (2) Where the dispute concerns the fairness of the employer's conduct, it must be settled by way of adjudication or arbitration. As a result of the above categorisation, the CCMA or Bargaining Council may adjudicate a dispute relating to benefits where there is a pre-existing benefit and the employer refuses to comply with its obligation towards the employer in that regard. It may also adjudicate disputes relating to the provision of a car allowance (i.e. where the employer retains the discretion to grant or withhold the allowance) and disputes relating to the provision of bonuses (i.e. where the employer retains the discretion to grant or withhold the bonus). In this treatise, I set out the history and development of the legislation in relation to the concept of “benefits” (in the context of unfair labour practice) so as to understand how our Labour Appeal Court has now come to settle the issues above.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
Unfair discrimination in recruitment practices
- Authors: Brand, Hugo
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Employment interviewing , Discrimination in employment
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10260 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1021197
- Description: The focus of this paper is to emphasize the importance for every employer to avoid unfair discrimination during the recruitment process and to value diversity in the workplace. This is not only a legal requirement, but also gives an employer the best chance of getting the right person for the job. It is crucial to understand that job applicants are mostly people that employer’s do not actually employ, but might be able to make an unfair discrimination claim against the employer if the claimant believes he/she was not selected for a job because the employer discriminated against them unlawfully in the recruitment process. When writing the job description and a person specification, the employer should state clearly what tasks the person will have to execute and what skills will be needed for the job. Job descriptions should accurately describe the genuine essential duties and inherent requirements of the job. Personnel specifications should accurately describe the relevant, non-discriminatory and objectively justifiable requirements to be met by the post-holder. Specifications should not have any requirements that are not directly related to the job and it is important for employers to provide evidence that each recruitment and screening practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity. Employers are advised to devise and implement recruitment procedures and guidelines for all staff and applicants involved in the process of recruitment and to ensure that these incorporate the principles of the organisation’s equal opportunity principles. Employers should administer recruitment and other selection procedures without regard to race, colour, national origin, sex, religion, age and disability. Even though South Africa is now governed by a new democratic order, historical workplace inequalities still need to be addressed. Not only compelled to redress inequalities by the Constitution, the South African government was motivated by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) to enact laws that would prohibit discrimination and promote the economic advancement of the majority. Recruitment tests or selection procedures must be job-related and its results appropriate for the employer’s purpose. If a recruitment procedure screens out a protected group, the employer should determine whether there is an equally effective alternative selection procedure that has less adverse impact and, if so, adopt the alternative procedure. The justification of discrimination in recruitment practices and affirmative action is only meaningful if it is targeted towards particular aims. One of the more important defences against unfair discrimination in the workplace is the general fairness defence. The general fairness defence is considered to be an applicable defence based on fairness in situations where the two statutory exceptions do not apply. This means than when one looks at the concept of unfair discrimination it implies that discrimination may be justified in certain circumstances Legislation prohibits discrimination on various grounds especially throughout the process of recruitment and selection. There are limited exceptions to the general principle that it is unlawful to use gender, race, religion or sexual orientation as a criterion in the recruitment process. These exceptions are known as genuine occupational qualifications and the specifications for jobs should be carefully examined to ensure that there are no factors contained that are indirectly discriminatory. Focus must be placed on avoiding indirect discrimination in job factors. In the early stages of the recruitment process, an employee specification should be written that describes the type of person the employer seeks to be appointed in terms of qualifications, experience, skills and personal attributes. The imposition of inappropriate or unsuccessfully high standards or criteria may indirectly discriminate against people from a particular minority or racial group or religion. Employees must have the necessary skills to demand employment equity status especially where a designated employer does not have sufficient affirmative action employees and is obliged to rectify the situation. However, this does not mean that affirmative action applicants must be chosen above non-affirmative action employees. The principle of reversed discrimination stands firm if the motivation for appointing a particular person is based on a genuine desire to promote diversity, to apply affirmative action and to increase the numbers of people from a disadvantaged group in employment, or to create a more balanced workforce.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
- Authors: Brand, Hugo
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Employment interviewing , Discrimination in employment
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10260 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1021197
- Description: The focus of this paper is to emphasize the importance for every employer to avoid unfair discrimination during the recruitment process and to value diversity in the workplace. This is not only a legal requirement, but also gives an employer the best chance of getting the right person for the job. It is crucial to understand that job applicants are mostly people that employer’s do not actually employ, but might be able to make an unfair discrimination claim against the employer if the claimant believes he/she was not selected for a job because the employer discriminated against them unlawfully in the recruitment process. When writing the job description and a person specification, the employer should state clearly what tasks the person will have to execute and what skills will be needed for the job. Job descriptions should accurately describe the genuine essential duties and inherent requirements of the job. Personnel specifications should accurately describe the relevant, non-discriminatory and objectively justifiable requirements to be met by the post-holder. Specifications should not have any requirements that are not directly related to the job and it is important for employers to provide evidence that each recruitment and screening practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity. Employers are advised to devise and implement recruitment procedures and guidelines for all staff and applicants involved in the process of recruitment and to ensure that these incorporate the principles of the organisation’s equal opportunity principles. Employers should administer recruitment and other selection procedures without regard to race, colour, national origin, sex, religion, age and disability. Even though South Africa is now governed by a new democratic order, historical workplace inequalities still need to be addressed. Not only compelled to redress inequalities by the Constitution, the South African government was motivated by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) to enact laws that would prohibit discrimination and promote the economic advancement of the majority. Recruitment tests or selection procedures must be job-related and its results appropriate for the employer’s purpose. If a recruitment procedure screens out a protected group, the employer should determine whether there is an equally effective alternative selection procedure that has less adverse impact and, if so, adopt the alternative procedure. The justification of discrimination in recruitment practices and affirmative action is only meaningful if it is targeted towards particular aims. One of the more important defences against unfair discrimination in the workplace is the general fairness defence. The general fairness defence is considered to be an applicable defence based on fairness in situations where the two statutory exceptions do not apply. This means than when one looks at the concept of unfair discrimination it implies that discrimination may be justified in certain circumstances Legislation prohibits discrimination on various grounds especially throughout the process of recruitment and selection. There are limited exceptions to the general principle that it is unlawful to use gender, race, religion or sexual orientation as a criterion in the recruitment process. These exceptions are known as genuine occupational qualifications and the specifications for jobs should be carefully examined to ensure that there are no factors contained that are indirectly discriminatory. Focus must be placed on avoiding indirect discrimination in job factors. In the early stages of the recruitment process, an employee specification should be written that describes the type of person the employer seeks to be appointed in terms of qualifications, experience, skills and personal attributes. The imposition of inappropriate or unsuccessfully high standards or criteria may indirectly discriminate against people from a particular minority or racial group or religion. Employees must have the necessary skills to demand employment equity status especially where a designated employer does not have sufficient affirmative action employees and is obliged to rectify the situation. However, this does not mean that affirmative action applicants must be chosen above non-affirmative action employees. The principle of reversed discrimination stands firm if the motivation for appointing a particular person is based on a genuine desire to promote diversity, to apply affirmative action and to increase the numbers of people from a disadvantaged group in employment, or to create a more balanced workforce.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »