Large scale retrenchments: an overview of Section 189 A
- Authors: Ah Shene, Lee-Anne Dorothy
- Date: 2012
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Retrenchments
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10237 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1012042 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Retrenchments
- Description: This treatise sets out and evaluates recent developments in the area of large-scale retrenchments in South Africa. Dismissals are considered to be a source of great controversy, but more so large scale retrenchments. It was with this in mind that the various role players sought an amendment in 2002 so as to address the concerns by both employers and employees. The applicable legislation, namely section 189A of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, was enacted to ensure the smooth operation of this genre of retrenchments. In this treatise, section 189A will be evaluated. Section 189A stipulates what procedure should be utilized, for dismissals necessitated by operational requirements. The inclusion of this provision was an attempt to address the concerns of both employers and employees. Chapter 1 provides us with an overview with regard to why change with regard to retrenchment legislation was necessary. In Chapter 2 the definition of operational requirements will be unpacked as well as what definition the courts have attached to the term "operational requirements‟, and more importantly the issue relating to substantive fairness. Chapter 3 examines when the applicable provision is triggered, whether or not an employer can stagger retrenchments, the facilitation process, and the regulations pertaining to facilitations. The facilitation process itself and the consultation aspect of the facilitation process are recounted. The meaning of „consultation‟ is evaluated, and it should be noted that section 189 and section 189A are interrelated when topics of consultation are considered. Chapter 4 addresses the instance when no facilitator is appointed and the mechanisms of section 189A(7) and (8); further discussions relating to subsection 13, and 19 will furthermore be evaluated with reference to case law. Chapter 5 sets out the various viewpoints on whether or not section 189A has been successful, and the chapter questions the effectiveness of the provision to provide a realistic view of large-scale retrenchments and whether the enactment thereof was an effective mechanism protecting the rights of employees faced with possible unemployment. The implementation of the training lay off system will be looked at and the statistics of the CCMA will be used as a measure to determine the effectiveness of section 189A. Chapter 6 concludes the thesis, by highlighting lessons learnt from case law for both employees and employers.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2012
- Authors: Ah Shene, Lee-Anne Dorothy
- Date: 2012
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Retrenchments
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10237 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1012042 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Retrenchments
- Description: This treatise sets out and evaluates recent developments in the area of large-scale retrenchments in South Africa. Dismissals are considered to be a source of great controversy, but more so large scale retrenchments. It was with this in mind that the various role players sought an amendment in 2002 so as to address the concerns by both employers and employees. The applicable legislation, namely section 189A of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, was enacted to ensure the smooth operation of this genre of retrenchments. In this treatise, section 189A will be evaluated. Section 189A stipulates what procedure should be utilized, for dismissals necessitated by operational requirements. The inclusion of this provision was an attempt to address the concerns of both employers and employees. Chapter 1 provides us with an overview with regard to why change with regard to retrenchment legislation was necessary. In Chapter 2 the definition of operational requirements will be unpacked as well as what definition the courts have attached to the term "operational requirements‟, and more importantly the issue relating to substantive fairness. Chapter 3 examines when the applicable provision is triggered, whether or not an employer can stagger retrenchments, the facilitation process, and the regulations pertaining to facilitations. The facilitation process itself and the consultation aspect of the facilitation process are recounted. The meaning of „consultation‟ is evaluated, and it should be noted that section 189 and section 189A are interrelated when topics of consultation are considered. Chapter 4 addresses the instance when no facilitator is appointed and the mechanisms of section 189A(7) and (8); further discussions relating to subsection 13, and 19 will furthermore be evaluated with reference to case law. Chapter 5 sets out the various viewpoints on whether or not section 189A has been successful, and the chapter questions the effectiveness of the provision to provide a realistic view of large-scale retrenchments and whether the enactment thereof was an effective mechanism protecting the rights of employees faced with possible unemployment. The implementation of the training lay off system will be looked at and the statistics of the CCMA will be used as a measure to determine the effectiveness of section 189A. Chapter 6 concludes the thesis, by highlighting lessons learnt from case law for both employees and employers.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2012
Dismissal for medical incapacity
- Authors: Boy, Anthony Albert
- Date: 2004
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Capacity and disability -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:11047 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/316 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Capacity and disability -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: Labour law in South Africa has evolved over the past century at an ever increasing pace. The establishment of a democratic government in 1995 has been the trigger for a large number of labour law statutes being promulgated, particularly with reference to the laws governing the employment relationship and dismissal. From very humble and employer biased dispute resolution application under the common law of contract, labour law in this country has evolved through the various acts culminating in a labour law system which is highly regulated and codified. Dismissal for medical incapacity in this treatise is reviewed with regard to the applicable statutes and the various codes of good practice as the law has evolved and developed from the period covered by the common law through that covered by the 1995 LRA up to and including the current period. Particular attention is paid to both substantive and procedural requirements as well as the remedies applicable under the different legal regimes and the pertinent tribunals and courts. Regard is also given to the duration and causes of incapacity and the effect this may have on the applicable remedy applied by these tribunals. It will become apparant that the medically incapacitated employee occupied a relatively weak and vulnerable position under the common law as opposed to the current position under the 1995 LRA. The influence of the remedies applied by the tribunals under the 1956 LRA are clearly evident in the current regulations and codes under the 1995 LRA which contain specific statutory provisions for employees not to be unfairly dismissed. Distinctions are drawn between permissible and impermissible dismissals, with medical incapacity falling under the former. v Furthermore, a distinction is drawn statutorily between permanent and temporary illhealth/ injury incapacity with detailed guidelines for substantive and procedural fairness requirements to be met by employers. The powers of the specialist tribunals (CCMA, Bargaining Councils and Labour Courts) are regulated by statutory provisions and deal with appropriate remedies (reinstatement and/or compensation) a wardable in appropriate circumstances. Certain specific areas nonetheless still remain problematic for these tribunals and hence questions that require clear direction from the drafters of our law are: 1. How to distinguish misconduct in alcohol and drug abuse cases? 2. What degree of intermittent absenteeism is required before dismissal would be warranted? In certain other areas the tribunals have been fairly consistent and prescriptive in their approach and remedies awarded. Included here would be permanent incapacity, HIV cases and misconduct. It will emerge, however, that under the 1995 LRA the position of employees and the protections afforded them have been greatly increased.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2004
- Authors: Boy, Anthony Albert
- Date: 2004
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Capacity and disability -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:11047 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/316 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Capacity and disability -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: Labour law in South Africa has evolved over the past century at an ever increasing pace. The establishment of a democratic government in 1995 has been the trigger for a large number of labour law statutes being promulgated, particularly with reference to the laws governing the employment relationship and dismissal. From very humble and employer biased dispute resolution application under the common law of contract, labour law in this country has evolved through the various acts culminating in a labour law system which is highly regulated and codified. Dismissal for medical incapacity in this treatise is reviewed with regard to the applicable statutes and the various codes of good practice as the law has evolved and developed from the period covered by the common law through that covered by the 1995 LRA up to and including the current period. Particular attention is paid to both substantive and procedural requirements as well as the remedies applicable under the different legal regimes and the pertinent tribunals and courts. Regard is also given to the duration and causes of incapacity and the effect this may have on the applicable remedy applied by these tribunals. It will become apparant that the medically incapacitated employee occupied a relatively weak and vulnerable position under the common law as opposed to the current position under the 1995 LRA. The influence of the remedies applied by the tribunals under the 1956 LRA are clearly evident in the current regulations and codes under the 1995 LRA which contain specific statutory provisions for employees not to be unfairly dismissed. Distinctions are drawn between permissible and impermissible dismissals, with medical incapacity falling under the former. v Furthermore, a distinction is drawn statutorily between permanent and temporary illhealth/ injury incapacity with detailed guidelines for substantive and procedural fairness requirements to be met by employers. The powers of the specialist tribunals (CCMA, Bargaining Councils and Labour Courts) are regulated by statutory provisions and deal with appropriate remedies (reinstatement and/or compensation) a wardable in appropriate circumstances. Certain specific areas nonetheless still remain problematic for these tribunals and hence questions that require clear direction from the drafters of our law are: 1. How to distinguish misconduct in alcohol and drug abuse cases? 2. What degree of intermittent absenteeism is required before dismissal would be warranted? In certain other areas the tribunals have been fairly consistent and prescriptive in their approach and remedies awarded. Included here would be permanent incapacity, HIV cases and misconduct. It will emerge, however, that under the 1995 LRA the position of employees and the protections afforded them have been greatly increased.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2004
Dismissal for medical incapacity
- Authors: Boy, Anthony Albert
- Date: 2004
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Capacity and disability -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10242 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1016262
- Description: Labour law in South Africa has evolved over the past century at an ever increasing pace. The establishment of a democratic government in 1995 has been the trigger for a large number of labour law statutes being promulgated, particularly with reference to the laws governing the employment relationship and dismissal. From very humble and employer biased dispute resolution application under the common law of contract, labour law in this country has evolved through the various acts culminating in a labour law system which is highly regulated and codified. Dismissal for medical incapacity in this treatise is reviewed with regard to the applicable statutes and the various codes of good practice as the law has evolved and developed from the period covered by the common law through that covered by the 1995 LRA up to and including the current period. Particular attention is paid to both substantive and procedural requirements as well as the remedies applicable under the different legal regimes and the pertinent tribunals and courts. Regard is also given to the duration and causes of incapacity and the effect this may have on the applicable remedy applied by these tribunals. It will become apparant that the medically incapacitated employee occupied a relatively weak and vulnerable position under the common law as opposed to the current position under the 1995 LRA. The influence of the remedies applied by the tribunals under the 1956 LRA are clearly evident in the current regulations and codes under the 1995 LRA which contain specific statutory provisions for employees not to be unfairly dismissed. Distinctions are drawn between permissible and impermissible dismissals, with medical incapacity falling under the former. Furthermore, a distinction is drawn statutorily between permanent and temporary illhealth/injury incapacity with detailed guidelines for substantive and procedural fairness requirements to be met by employers. The powers of the specialist tribunals (CCMA, Bargaining Councils and Labour Courts) are regulated by statutory provisions and deal with appropriate remedies (reinstatement and/or compensation) a wardable in appropriate circumstances. Certain specific areas nonetheless still remain problematic for these tribunals and hence questions that require clear direction from the drafters of our law are: How to distinguish misconduct in alcohol and drug abuse cases? What degree of intermittent absenteeism is required before dismissal would be warranted? In certain other areas the tribunals have been fairly consistent and prescriptive in their approach and remedies awarded. Included here would be permanent incapacity, HIV cases and misconduct. It will emerge, however, that under the 1995 LRA the position of employees and the protections afforded them have been greatly increased.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2004
- Authors: Boy, Anthony Albert
- Date: 2004
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Capacity and disability -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10242 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1016262
- Description: Labour law in South Africa has evolved over the past century at an ever increasing pace. The establishment of a democratic government in 1995 has been the trigger for a large number of labour law statutes being promulgated, particularly with reference to the laws governing the employment relationship and dismissal. From very humble and employer biased dispute resolution application under the common law of contract, labour law in this country has evolved through the various acts culminating in a labour law system which is highly regulated and codified. Dismissal for medical incapacity in this treatise is reviewed with regard to the applicable statutes and the various codes of good practice as the law has evolved and developed from the period covered by the common law through that covered by the 1995 LRA up to and including the current period. Particular attention is paid to both substantive and procedural requirements as well as the remedies applicable under the different legal regimes and the pertinent tribunals and courts. Regard is also given to the duration and causes of incapacity and the effect this may have on the applicable remedy applied by these tribunals. It will become apparant that the medically incapacitated employee occupied a relatively weak and vulnerable position under the common law as opposed to the current position under the 1995 LRA. The influence of the remedies applied by the tribunals under the 1956 LRA are clearly evident in the current regulations and codes under the 1995 LRA which contain specific statutory provisions for employees not to be unfairly dismissed. Distinctions are drawn between permissible and impermissible dismissals, with medical incapacity falling under the former. Furthermore, a distinction is drawn statutorily between permanent and temporary illhealth/injury incapacity with detailed guidelines for substantive and procedural fairness requirements to be met by employers. The powers of the specialist tribunals (CCMA, Bargaining Councils and Labour Courts) are regulated by statutory provisions and deal with appropriate remedies (reinstatement and/or compensation) a wardable in appropriate circumstances. Certain specific areas nonetheless still remain problematic for these tribunals and hence questions that require clear direction from the drafters of our law are: How to distinguish misconduct in alcohol and drug abuse cases? What degree of intermittent absenteeism is required before dismissal would be warranted? In certain other areas the tribunals have been fairly consistent and prescriptive in their approach and remedies awarded. Included here would be permanent incapacity, HIV cases and misconduct. It will emerge, however, that under the 1995 LRA the position of employees and the protections afforded them have been greatly increased.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2004
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:
Insubordination in the workplace
- Authors: Chadd, Kevin Mark
- Date: 1999
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:3668 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1003183 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: This thesis traces the development of insubordination in the employment relationship. The essence of the relationship is that the employee, by contracting out his or her productive capacity, occupies a subordinate position. The primary aim is to locate and define the nature of subordination and to investigate how the breach of this position would justify dismissal as interpreted and applied by the courts. This is achieved by investigating dismissal for insubordination under the common law contract of employment, the unfair labour practice jurisdiction and the 1995 Labour Relations Act. Initially the obligation of the employee to be subordinate, an essential term of the contract of employment, is located and defined by using the tests of Control, Organisation and Dominant Impression, which theoretically indicate the true nature of insubordination. Insubordination under the common law is equated with disobedience to the lawful and reasonable instructions of the employer which were given in good faith and fell squarely within the contractual relationship. Insubordination under the unfair labour practice jurisdiction was equated with a challenge to the authority of the employer of which disobedience was a manifestation of such intention. Instructions given by the employer under the unfair labour practice jurisdiction had to be lawful, reasonable and fair. What was fair depended on the surrounding circumstances of the dismissal and a wilful and unreasonable refusal of the employee to obey the valid instructions of the employer justified dismissal Under the 1995 Labour Relations Act it is submitted that insubordination will be dealt with in essentially the same manner as under the previous jurisdiction, subject to the Act's objectives and purposes. The disobedience of the employee is to be tolerated if that employee is attempting to achieve the Act's objectives, and any dismissal as a result of the disobedience could be unfair, because the employer's conduct fiustrates the purpose of the Act. Therefore, the contractual right of the employer to expect subordination from the employee may have been whittled away to such an extent over time that it seems superficial to regard subordination as an essential term of the contract of employment.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 1999
- Authors: Chadd, Kevin Mark
- Date: 1999
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:3668 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1003183 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: This thesis traces the development of insubordination in the employment relationship. The essence of the relationship is that the employee, by contracting out his or her productive capacity, occupies a subordinate position. The primary aim is to locate and define the nature of subordination and to investigate how the breach of this position would justify dismissal as interpreted and applied by the courts. This is achieved by investigating dismissal for insubordination under the common law contract of employment, the unfair labour practice jurisdiction and the 1995 Labour Relations Act. Initially the obligation of the employee to be subordinate, an essential term of the contract of employment, is located and defined by using the tests of Control, Organisation and Dominant Impression, which theoretically indicate the true nature of insubordination. Insubordination under the common law is equated with disobedience to the lawful and reasonable instructions of the employer which were given in good faith and fell squarely within the contractual relationship. Insubordination under the unfair labour practice jurisdiction was equated with a challenge to the authority of the employer of which disobedience was a manifestation of such intention. Instructions given by the employer under the unfair labour practice jurisdiction had to be lawful, reasonable and fair. What was fair depended on the surrounding circumstances of the dismissal and a wilful and unreasonable refusal of the employee to obey the valid instructions of the employer justified dismissal Under the 1995 Labour Relations Act it is submitted that insubordination will be dealt with in essentially the same manner as under the previous jurisdiction, subject to the Act's objectives and purposes. The disobedience of the employee is to be tolerated if that employee is attempting to achieve the Act's objectives, and any dismissal as a result of the disobedience could be unfair, because the employer's conduct fiustrates the purpose of the Act. Therefore, the contractual right of the employer to expect subordination from the employee may have been whittled away to such an extent over time that it seems superficial to regard subordination as an essential term of the contract of employment.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 1999
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 determination of compensation in unfair dismissal cases
- Authors: Dayimani, Vuyisile
- Date: 2014
- Subjects: Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Workers' compensation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10275 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1020775
- Description: The LRA 66 of 1995 was established to give effect to section 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, which guarantees that everyone has a right to fair labour practices. Amongst others, the purpose of the LRA is to advance economic development, labour peace and the effective resolution of labour disputes. At common law termination of employment was occasioned by the conduct of the employer or employee, in terms of which either party may terminate an employment contract by giving agreed notice or reasonable notice. The LRA broadened the common law concept of “repudiation” of a contract of employment in terms of which section 186 of the LRA now defines the term “dismissal” to mean various possible instances that can be caused by the employer or employee. Furthermore, section 185 of the same Act clearly states that a dismissal can be found to be unfair and makes provision for redress to an employee who would be aggrieved by a dismissal. Compensation is one of the remedies that can be awarded to an employee who is found to have been unfairly dismissed. Unlike the LRA of 1956 which gave the courts an unfettered discretion regarding the compensation that could be awarded, section 194 of the current LRA places a limit on the compensation amount that can be awarded. A decision hereon is determined with reference to whether the dismissal is found to have been procedurally, substantively unfair or both. The Act further requires that the compensation must be just and equitable. A challenge in applying section 194 of the Act in this regard is that there would be vast inconsistencies in terms of the amount of compensation to be awarded and that certain presiding officers could consider different approaches in considering factors to be determined when deciding on compensation. In many other instances compensation for unfair dismissal would be decided around the idea of solely punishing the employer. This research document is mainly concerned with identifying the said challenges through case law by considering the decisions of the commissioners and judges in interpreting the old and current provisions of section 194 of the Act. The old section 194 of the Act created a formula to be followed by presiding officers when making a determination on the compensation awarded. The interpretation of the section and its formula brought with it its own complications. The amended section 194 on the other hand, conferred a discretion on presiding officers to award compensation within the caps of 12 months and 24 months for procedurally and substantively unfair dismissal respectively, for as long as the compensation would be just and equitable in all circumstances. Relevant case law and the opinions of labour law experts have been of great assistance in interpreting the current section 194. The factors do not constitute an exhaustive list. They are a mere guideline to presiding officers so as to eliminate or minimize inconsistencies in awarding compensation.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2014
- Authors: Dayimani, Vuyisile
- Date: 2014
- Subjects: Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Workers' compensation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10275 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1020775
- Description: The LRA 66 of 1995 was established to give effect to section 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, which guarantees that everyone has a right to fair labour practices. Amongst others, the purpose of the LRA is to advance economic development, labour peace and the effective resolution of labour disputes. At common law termination of employment was occasioned by the conduct of the employer or employee, in terms of which either party may terminate an employment contract by giving agreed notice or reasonable notice. The LRA broadened the common law concept of “repudiation” of a contract of employment in terms of which section 186 of the LRA now defines the term “dismissal” to mean various possible instances that can be caused by the employer or employee. Furthermore, section 185 of the same Act clearly states that a dismissal can be found to be unfair and makes provision for redress to an employee who would be aggrieved by a dismissal. Compensation is one of the remedies that can be awarded to an employee who is found to have been unfairly dismissed. Unlike the LRA of 1956 which gave the courts an unfettered discretion regarding the compensation that could be awarded, section 194 of the current LRA places a limit on the compensation amount that can be awarded. A decision hereon is determined with reference to whether the dismissal is found to have been procedurally, substantively unfair or both. The Act further requires that the compensation must be just and equitable. A challenge in applying section 194 of the Act in this regard is that there would be vast inconsistencies in terms of the amount of compensation to be awarded and that certain presiding officers could consider different approaches in considering factors to be determined when deciding on compensation. In many other instances compensation for unfair dismissal would be decided around the idea of solely punishing the employer. This research document is mainly concerned with identifying the said challenges through case law by considering the decisions of the commissioners and judges in interpreting the old and current provisions of section 194 of the Act. The old section 194 of the Act created a formula to be followed by presiding officers when making a determination on the compensation awarded. The interpretation of the section and its formula brought with it its own complications. The amended section 194 on the other hand, conferred a discretion on presiding officers to award compensation within the caps of 12 months and 24 months for procedurally and substantively unfair dismissal respectively, for as long as the compensation would be just and equitable in all circumstances. Relevant case law and the opinions of labour law experts have been of great assistance in interpreting the current section 194. The factors do not constitute an exhaustive list. They are a mere guideline to presiding officers so as to eliminate or minimize inconsistencies in awarding compensation.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2014
The constitutionality of Section 14 of the Employment of Educators Act
- Authors: Delport, Gerhardus Jordaan
- Date: 2017
- Subjects: Educational law and legislation -- South Africa Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/15479 , vital:28257
- Description: The Department of Education, as part of the public sector, employs educators in terms of the Employment of Educators Act (EEA),1 whereas the rest of the public servants are employed in terms of the Public Service Act (PSA). If an educator is absent for more than 14 consecutive days without the permission of the employer, the educator is deemed to be discharged according to section 14(1)(a). With regard to the rest of the public sector, a similar provision is put in place, where section 17(5)(a) provides for the discharge of a public officer who is absent from his / her duties without the permission of the Head of Department for a calendar month (31 days). Sometimes long absent periods are caused by personal circumstances of the employee which are unforeseen. If the employee reports for duty after the dismissal, section 14(2) of the EEA provides that, the employee may be reinstated by the employer on good cause shown, after a post-dismissal hearing. If an employee in the public sector is discharged based on these deeming provisions, the employment is terminated by the operation of the law and there is no dismissal. This means that the employer is not responsible for the termination, meaning than there exists no option to review the dismissal. The supreme law of the Republic of South Africa (RSA) is the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (the Constitution).5 The question at hand is whether the deeming provision of section 14 of the EEA6 is constitutional. The Labour Relations Act (LRA) goes further by stipulating that every person has the right not to be unfairly dismissed, and not to be subjected to unfair labour practice.7 Section 23 of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right to fair labour practices. Furthermore, section 33 of the Constitution provides for fair administrative action. The question is whether these provisions, dealing with the dismissal of educators, limit the employee’s constitutional right to a fair labour practice.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2017
- Authors: Delport, Gerhardus Jordaan
- Date: 2017
- Subjects: Educational law and legislation -- South Africa Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/15479 , vital:28257
- Description: The Department of Education, as part of the public sector, employs educators in terms of the Employment of Educators Act (EEA),1 whereas the rest of the public servants are employed in terms of the Public Service Act (PSA). If an educator is absent for more than 14 consecutive days without the permission of the employer, the educator is deemed to be discharged according to section 14(1)(a). With regard to the rest of the public sector, a similar provision is put in place, where section 17(5)(a) provides for the discharge of a public officer who is absent from his / her duties without the permission of the Head of Department for a calendar month (31 days). Sometimes long absent periods are caused by personal circumstances of the employee which are unforeseen. If the employee reports for duty after the dismissal, section 14(2) of the EEA provides that, the employee may be reinstated by the employer on good cause shown, after a post-dismissal hearing. If an employee in the public sector is discharged based on these deeming provisions, the employment is terminated by the operation of the law and there is no dismissal. This means that the employer is not responsible for the termination, meaning than there exists no option to review the dismissal. The supreme law of the Republic of South Africa (RSA) is the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (the Constitution).5 The question at hand is whether the deeming provision of section 14 of the EEA6 is constitutional. The Labour Relations Act (LRA) goes further by stipulating that every person has the right not to be unfairly dismissed, and not to be subjected to unfair labour practice.7 Section 23 of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right to fair labour practices. Furthermore, section 33 of the Constitution provides for fair administrative action. The question is whether these provisions, dealing with the dismissal of educators, limit the employee’s constitutional right to a fair labour practice.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2017
Establishing a fair sanction in misconduct cases
- Authors: Grigor, Francois
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Labor discipline -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10261 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1021217
- Description: It is the right of every employee in South Africa not to be unfairly dismissed. According to the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 an employer may fairly dismiss an employee on the grounds of conduct, capacity or operational requirements. In addition, the employer is required to also comply with a fair procedure before effecting a dismissal. The requirement of procedural fairness is, however, not as stringent as it was under the previous dispensation established by the former Industrial Courts in terms of the earlier Labour Relations Act. The question as to whether or not a reason for dismissal is fair, is to be established by the facts of each individual case, and the suitability of dismissal as an appropriate remedy. It remains a challenge to establish if dismissal would be an appropriate sanction in a particular case of misconduct. The test is whether the award is one that a reasonable decision-maker could arrive at taking into account the evidence to be considered. It is no longer the employer’s view that is dominant, but “[u]ltimately, the commissioner’s sense of fairness is what must prevail”. The notion of fairness however applies equally to employer an employee and it involves balancing the competing and, every so often, inconsistent, interests of the employer on the one side, and the employee on the other side. The relative weight afforded to the particular interests creates very specific challenges, but nonetheless depends essentially on the overall circumstances of each individual case. Whether dismissal for misconduct is for a fair reason would established by the facts of the case, coupled with the appropriateness of dismissal as a sanction. Dismissal as a penalty should be reserved for cases involving serious misconduct and repeated disciplinary infractions. A crucial question would be whether the misconduct is of such a serious nature that it goes to the core of the employment relationship and makes any possible continued employment relationship intolerable. Additionally, apart from aspects like the importance of the rule breached and the harm caused by the employee’s breach, certain considerations should also be accounted, like length of service disciplinary history, and the employee’s personal circumstances, as well as the particular circumstances surrounding the infringement. Dishonest conduct by an employee that destroys the goodwill, trust and confidence an employer holds towards an employee, would normally be deemed as a significant breach which may justify a sanction of dismissal. The test is whether or not the misconduct was of such serious nature that it would make a continued employment relationship intolerable; “whether or not respondent’s actions had the effect of rendering the continuation of the relationship of employer and employee intolerable”. It still remains for the employer to present evidence that a continued relationship would be intolerable and not to merely liken serious misconduct with such a finding. Relatively recent case law seems to suggest that employers are entitled to a strict attitude towards dishonesty as a ground for dismissal. The objective of the CCMA Guidelines on Misconduct Arbitrations, effective from 1 January 2012, is to ensure that arbitrators issue consistent awards on dismissals involving misconduct. The questions that the guidelines seek to address are, inter alia, (i) how an arbitrator should conduct the proceedings; (ii) the valuation of evidence for the purpose of making an award; (iii) assessing the procedural fairness of a dismissal; (iv) assessing the substantive fairness of a dismissal; and (v) determining the remedy for an unfair dismissal. The Guidelines are peremptory in that arbitrators will have to take them into account and will have to provide an explanation if they deviate. It is undoubtedly a useful tool in guiding employers on what they need to present to commissioners at arbitration.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
- Authors: Grigor, Francois
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Labor discipline -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10261 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1021217
- Description: It is the right of every employee in South Africa not to be unfairly dismissed. According to the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 an employer may fairly dismiss an employee on the grounds of conduct, capacity or operational requirements. In addition, the employer is required to also comply with a fair procedure before effecting a dismissal. The requirement of procedural fairness is, however, not as stringent as it was under the previous dispensation established by the former Industrial Courts in terms of the earlier Labour Relations Act. The question as to whether or not a reason for dismissal is fair, is to be established by the facts of each individual case, and the suitability of dismissal as an appropriate remedy. It remains a challenge to establish if dismissal would be an appropriate sanction in a particular case of misconduct. The test is whether the award is one that a reasonable decision-maker could arrive at taking into account the evidence to be considered. It is no longer the employer’s view that is dominant, but “[u]ltimately, the commissioner’s sense of fairness is what must prevail”. The notion of fairness however applies equally to employer an employee and it involves balancing the competing and, every so often, inconsistent, interests of the employer on the one side, and the employee on the other side. The relative weight afforded to the particular interests creates very specific challenges, but nonetheless depends essentially on the overall circumstances of each individual case. Whether dismissal for misconduct is for a fair reason would established by the facts of the case, coupled with the appropriateness of dismissal as a sanction. Dismissal as a penalty should be reserved for cases involving serious misconduct and repeated disciplinary infractions. A crucial question would be whether the misconduct is of such a serious nature that it goes to the core of the employment relationship and makes any possible continued employment relationship intolerable. Additionally, apart from aspects like the importance of the rule breached and the harm caused by the employee’s breach, certain considerations should also be accounted, like length of service disciplinary history, and the employee’s personal circumstances, as well as the particular circumstances surrounding the infringement. Dishonest conduct by an employee that destroys the goodwill, trust and confidence an employer holds towards an employee, would normally be deemed as a significant breach which may justify a sanction of dismissal. The test is whether or not the misconduct was of such serious nature that it would make a continued employment relationship intolerable; “whether or not respondent’s actions had the effect of rendering the continuation of the relationship of employer and employee intolerable”. It still remains for the employer to present evidence that a continued relationship would be intolerable and not to merely liken serious misconduct with such a finding. Relatively recent case law seems to suggest that employers are entitled to a strict attitude towards dishonesty as a ground for dismissal. The objective of the CCMA Guidelines on Misconduct Arbitrations, effective from 1 January 2012, is to ensure that arbitrators issue consistent awards on dismissals involving misconduct. The questions that the guidelines seek to address are, inter alia, (i) how an arbitrator should conduct the proceedings; (ii) the valuation of evidence for the purpose of making an award; (iii) assessing the procedural fairness of a dismissal; (iv) assessing the substantive fairness of a dismissal; and (v) determining the remedy for an unfair dismissal. The Guidelines are peremptory in that arbitrators will have to take them into account and will have to provide an explanation if they deviate. It is undoubtedly a useful tool in guiding employers on what they need to present to commissioners at arbitration.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
Substantive fairness in dismissals based on operational requirements
- Authors: Hokwana, Tina
- Date: 2018
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor discipline -- 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/10948/30331 , vital:30931
- Description: This treatise interrogates the concept of substantive fairness in dismissals based on operational requirements and commences with the background and rationale to the study. It intends to achieve by virtue of specific research questions identified in the first chapter. The second chapter focuses on a discussion defining the term operational requirements and the circumstances in which employers have sought to justify dismissals based on operational requirements together with the courts’ interpretation of the term. Following an in-depth look at the South African courts’ interpretation of operational requirements, the third chapter analyses the jurisprudential development of the law of substantive fairness and assesses how the courts have applied statutory provisions relevant to operational requirement dismissals. The third chapter is then followed by a discussion on the aspects relating to selection criteria as pronounced by South African labour-law jurisprudence and deals specifically with the concept of LIFO and the employment universe. The fourth chapter also raises the various forms of fair and objective selection criteria, as well as the concept of bumping in light of the Employment Equity Act. The final chapter concludes that the primary areas requiring reform relate to the test for substantive fairness that does not include a proportionality analysis to weigh up the competing interests of the employer and the employees. The treatise further concludes with recommendations in dealing with dismissals based on operational requirements.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2018
- Authors: Hokwana, Tina
- Date: 2018
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor discipline -- 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/10948/30331 , vital:30931
- Description: This treatise interrogates the concept of substantive fairness in dismissals based on operational requirements and commences with the background and rationale to the study. It intends to achieve by virtue of specific research questions identified in the first chapter. The second chapter focuses on a discussion defining the term operational requirements and the circumstances in which employers have sought to justify dismissals based on operational requirements together with the courts’ interpretation of the term. Following an in-depth look at the South African courts’ interpretation of operational requirements, the third chapter analyses the jurisprudential development of the law of substantive fairness and assesses how the courts have applied statutory provisions relevant to operational requirement dismissals. The third chapter is then followed by a discussion on the aspects relating to selection criteria as pronounced by South African labour-law jurisprudence and deals specifically with the concept of LIFO and the employment universe. The fourth chapter also raises the various forms of fair and objective selection criteria, as well as the concept of bumping in light of the Employment Equity Act. The final chapter concludes that the primary areas requiring reform relate to the test for substantive fairness that does not include a proportionality analysis to weigh up the competing interests of the employer and the employees. The treatise further concludes with recommendations in dealing with dismissals based on operational requirements.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2018
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
Automatic unfair dismissal with reference to section 187(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act
- Authors: Janniker, Jonathan
- Date: 2018
- 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/10948/30584 , vital:30966
- Description: Automatic unfair dismissal are relatively new concept in South African employment law. The concept was only introduced in South African legislation with the promulgation of the labour relations act 66 of 1995(hearafter LRA) The concept however, found its roots from international labour organisation convention 58 of 1982. The court in South Africa under the guidance of the ILO convention were limited to two possible ways of dealing with automatically unfair dismissals. One was to criminalize the practice, and other was to ensure that such dismissals were considered unacceptable.
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2018
- Authors: Janniker, Jonathan
- Date: 2018
- 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/10948/30584 , vital:30966
- Description: Automatic unfair dismissal are relatively new concept in South African employment law. The concept was only introduced in South African legislation with the promulgation of the labour relations act 66 of 1995(hearafter LRA) The concept however, found its roots from international labour organisation convention 58 of 1982. The court in South Africa under the guidance of the ILO convention were limited to two possible ways of dealing with automatically unfair dismissals. One was to criminalize the practice, and other was to ensure that such dismissals were considered unacceptable.
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2018
Dismissal for ill health or injury and reasonable accommodation for disabled employees
- Authors: Mabenge, Mfundiso Samson
- Date: 2019
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa Discrimination in employment -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/34755 , vital:33437
- Description: This treatise examines the challenges faced by people with disabilities, in particular, dismissal and discrimination at the workplace. The study employed a qualitative approach to explore and address the research questions. It highlights that the Constitution provides protection against discrimination on the ground of disability. This right not to be discriminated against or unfairly dismissed is further given effect by the Codes of Good Practice in both the EEA and the LRA. Dismissal on a prohibited ground of discrimination, such as disability, is not merely unfair, but automatically unfair. Despite the above legislative protection, the findings in this study indicate that South Africa still faces huge challenges of disability discrimination and dismissal. Notwithstanding the increased sensitivity of this subject across the country, applicants for work and employees generally find themselves to be the victims of employment discrimination as well as dismissal due to their disability. Those who are in the working sector are not reasonably accommodated. The study submits that people with disabilities should be reasonably accommodated and be retained in the working sector as they have a positive role to play in the economy. In terms of legislation, the study found that although well written in theory, they are practically ineffective given that they are fragmented. This study observes that single legislation dealing comprehensively with disability management, like in other jurisdictions does not exist in South Africa. The lack of such single legislation is a significant weakness in the South African disability management framework. Therefore, this has resulted in a fragmented approach to implementation. The study suggests that trade union representatives and employers should be well trained, particularly on issues relating to dismissal for incapacity in general. From a global perspective, international organisations through ratifying Conventions have also heeded to the plight of disabled persons. This is proof that disability can no longer be confined to the borders of one nation. Many disability organisations have emerged over the years and are representing the interests of the disabled. The findings of this study may help companies, organisations and institutions improve their policy practices regarding the dismissal of employees associated with ill health or injury.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2019
- Authors: Mabenge, Mfundiso Samson
- Date: 2019
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa Discrimination in employment -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/34755 , vital:33437
- Description: This treatise examines the challenges faced by people with disabilities, in particular, dismissal and discrimination at the workplace. The study employed a qualitative approach to explore and address the research questions. It highlights that the Constitution provides protection against discrimination on the ground of disability. This right not to be discriminated against or unfairly dismissed is further given effect by the Codes of Good Practice in both the EEA and the LRA. Dismissal on a prohibited ground of discrimination, such as disability, is not merely unfair, but automatically unfair. Despite the above legislative protection, the findings in this study indicate that South Africa still faces huge challenges of disability discrimination and dismissal. Notwithstanding the increased sensitivity of this subject across the country, applicants for work and employees generally find themselves to be the victims of employment discrimination as well as dismissal due to their disability. Those who are in the working sector are not reasonably accommodated. The study submits that people with disabilities should be reasonably accommodated and be retained in the working sector as they have a positive role to play in the economy. In terms of legislation, the study found that although well written in theory, they are practically ineffective given that they are fragmented. This study observes that single legislation dealing comprehensively with disability management, like in other jurisdictions does not exist in South Africa. The lack of such single legislation is a significant weakness in the South African disability management framework. Therefore, this has resulted in a fragmented approach to implementation. The study suggests that trade union representatives and employers should be well trained, particularly on issues relating to dismissal for incapacity in general. From a global perspective, international organisations through ratifying Conventions have also heeded to the plight of disabled persons. This is proof that disability can no longer be confined to the borders of one nation. Many disability organisations have emerged over the years and are representing the interests of the disabled. The findings of this study may help companies, organisations and institutions improve their policy practices regarding the dismissal of employees associated with ill health or injury.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2019
The legality and enforceability of an automatic termination clause in the contract of employment
- Authors: Mbewana, Ntsikelelo Elliot
- Date: 2020
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor contract -- South Africa Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/48993 , vital:41575
- Description: This study seeks to determine the legality and enforceability of an automatic termination clause in a contract of employment. Our law seems to have two different procedures in dealing with this issue. The first aspect is to determine whether the automatic termination clause is inserted in a contract of employment merely to circumvent the provisions of the Labour Relations Act (LRA), in particular section 5(2)(b) of the LRA. If the intention is found to be to circumvent the purpose of the said provisions of the Act, then an automatic termination clause is not allowed and any termination of the contract resulting therefrom becomes a dismissal challengeable at the CCMA, Bargaining Council or Labour Court depending on the issue at hand. In the alternative, there is no dismissal for the purposes of section 186(1) of the Act in circumstances where the end of an agreed fixed term is defined by the occurrence of a particular event. Put differently, there is no dismissal when the agreed and anticipated event materialises. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa provides that everyone has the right to fair labour practices. This provision guarantees the right not to be unfairly dismissed and is in line with Article 4 of Convention 158 of the International Labour Organisation which provides that the employment of a worker shall not be terminated unless there is a valid reason for such termination connected with the capacity or conduct of the worker or based on operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service. This study aims to investigate the question of the legality and enforceability of an automatic termination clause in a contract of employment by analysing inter alia, the Constitution, LRA, ILO recommendations and the authorities in order to determine the extent of protection afforded to employees against employers.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2020
- Authors: Mbewana, Ntsikelelo Elliot
- Date: 2020
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor contract -- South Africa Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/48993 , vital:41575
- Description: This study seeks to determine the legality and enforceability of an automatic termination clause in a contract of employment. Our law seems to have two different procedures in dealing with this issue. The first aspect is to determine whether the automatic termination clause is inserted in a contract of employment merely to circumvent the provisions of the Labour Relations Act (LRA), in particular section 5(2)(b) of the LRA. If the intention is found to be to circumvent the purpose of the said provisions of the Act, then an automatic termination clause is not allowed and any termination of the contract resulting therefrom becomes a dismissal challengeable at the CCMA, Bargaining Council or Labour Court depending on the issue at hand. In the alternative, there is no dismissal for the purposes of section 186(1) of the Act in circumstances where the end of an agreed fixed term is defined by the occurrence of a particular event. Put differently, there is no dismissal when the agreed and anticipated event materialises. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa provides that everyone has the right to fair labour practices. This provision guarantees the right not to be unfairly dismissed and is in line with Article 4 of Convention 158 of the International Labour Organisation which provides that the employment of a worker shall not be terminated unless there is a valid reason for such termination connected with the capacity or conduct of the worker or based on operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service. This study aims to investigate the question of the legality and enforceability of an automatic termination clause in a contract of employment by analysing inter alia, the Constitution, LRA, ILO recommendations and the authorities in order to determine the extent of protection afforded to employees against employers.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2020
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
Procedural fairness in unprotected strike dismissals
- Authors: Nel, Werner
- Date: 2003
- Subjects: Strikes and lockouts -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , South Africa. Labour Relations Act -- 1995
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:11049 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/314 , Strikes and lockouts -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , South Africa. Labour Relations Act -- 1995
- Description: The Labour Relations Act contains a definition of a strike which reads as follows: “’strike’ means the partial or complete concerted refusal to work, or the retardation or obstruction of work, by persons who are or have been employed by the same employer or by different employers, for the purpose of remedying a grievance or resolving a dispute in respect of any matter of mutual interest between employer and employee, and every reference to ‘work’ in this definition includes overtime work, whether it is voluntary or compulsory.” The Labour Relations Act offers strikers special protection against dismissal if they conform with the Act and its provisions. Hence the distinction between those strikes and protest action in compliance with the Act, namely ‘protected’ strikes and protest action, and those strikes and protest action in violation of the Act, namely, ‘unprotected’ strikes and protest action. Participation in an unprotected strike is one form of misbehaviour. The Labour Relations Act expressly prohibits the dismissal of employees engaged in a lawful strike. Employees engaged in strike action contrary to the provisions of the Labour Relations Act may be dismissed since their strike action is deemed to be a form of misconduct. The dismissal of striking employees must be both substantially and procedurally fair.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2003
- Authors: Nel, Werner
- Date: 2003
- Subjects: Strikes and lockouts -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , South Africa. Labour Relations Act -- 1995
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:11049 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/314 , Strikes and lockouts -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , South Africa. Labour Relations Act -- 1995
- Description: The Labour Relations Act contains a definition of a strike which reads as follows: “’strike’ means the partial or complete concerted refusal to work, or the retardation or obstruction of work, by persons who are or have been employed by the same employer or by different employers, for the purpose of remedying a grievance or resolving a dispute in respect of any matter of mutual interest between employer and employee, and every reference to ‘work’ in this definition includes overtime work, whether it is voluntary or compulsory.” The Labour Relations Act offers strikers special protection against dismissal if they conform with the Act and its provisions. Hence the distinction between those strikes and protest action in compliance with the Act, namely ‘protected’ strikes and protest action, and those strikes and protest action in violation of the Act, namely, ‘unprotected’ strikes and protest action. Participation in an unprotected strike is one form of misbehaviour. The Labour Relations Act expressly prohibits the dismissal of employees engaged in a lawful strike. Employees engaged in strike action contrary to the provisions of the Labour Relations Act may be dismissed since their strike action is deemed to be a form of misconduct. The dismissal of striking employees must be both substantially and procedurally fair.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2003
Balancing the interests of employer and employee in dismissal for misconduct
- Pillay, Prushothman Subramoney
- Authors: Pillay, Prushothman Subramoney
- Date: 2018
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor discipline -- Law and legislation -- South Africa South Africa -- Employment Equity Act, 1998 South Africa -- Basic Conditions of Employment Act, 1997 South Africa -- Labour Relations Act, 1995 Unfair labor practices -- South Africa Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/34414 , vital:33375
- Description: South Africa emerged from a history dogged by an oppressive system in which race was used as a medium of oppression. Workers and in particular African workers’ rights were severely curtailed. However, following the advent of the Constitution, several employees’ rights and freedoms are now entrenched key amongst them in the right to fair labour practices is enshrined in section 23 (1) of the Constitution. Post 1994, South Africa adopted various new forms of labour legislation, including the Labour Relations Act. This marked the watershed in changing the balance of power away from the employer. The LRA gives form and content to the rights enshrined in the Constitution by establishing substantive and procedural requirements prior to dismissal. Equally important is the guidelines contained in schedule 8 to the LRA which depict an attempt by the legislature to ensure that employees are protected against unfair dismissal. The historical background of the employment relationship stems from the Master and Servant Act. The common law evolved in South Africa from Roman-Dutch and English practices. The common law was shaped against the backdrop of Apartheid modified to some extent through the Wiehahn Commission4 and more recently politically through union and National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) involvement regulating labour practices through legislation. In South Africa, the employment relationship is regulated by three main sources of law. These include the Constitution, labour legislation and the law of contract. Besides these sources, South Africa is a member state of the International Labour Organisation.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2018
- Authors: Pillay, Prushothman Subramoney
- Date: 2018
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor discipline -- Law and legislation -- South Africa South Africa -- Employment Equity Act, 1998 South Africa -- Basic Conditions of Employment Act, 1997 South Africa -- Labour Relations Act, 1995 Unfair labor practices -- South Africa Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/34414 , vital:33375
- Description: South Africa emerged from a history dogged by an oppressive system in which race was used as a medium of oppression. Workers and in particular African workers’ rights were severely curtailed. However, following the advent of the Constitution, several employees’ rights and freedoms are now entrenched key amongst them in the right to fair labour practices is enshrined in section 23 (1) of the Constitution. Post 1994, South Africa adopted various new forms of labour legislation, including the Labour Relations Act. This marked the watershed in changing the balance of power away from the employer. The LRA gives form and content to the rights enshrined in the Constitution by establishing substantive and procedural requirements prior to dismissal. Equally important is the guidelines contained in schedule 8 to the LRA which depict an attempt by the legislature to ensure that employees are protected against unfair dismissal. The historical background of the employment relationship stems from the Master and Servant Act. The common law evolved in South Africa from Roman-Dutch and English practices. The common law was shaped against the backdrop of Apartheid modified to some extent through the Wiehahn Commission4 and more recently politically through union and National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) involvement regulating labour practices through legislation. In South Africa, the employment relationship is regulated by three main sources of law. These include the Constitution, labour legislation and the law of contract. Besides these sources, South Africa is a member state of the International Labour Organisation.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2018
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
Termination of the contract of employment not constituting dismissal
- Authors: Sipuka, Sibongile
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor discipline -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10258 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1021152
- Description: Section 23 of the Constitution provides that everyone has a right to fair labour practice. The constitutional right to fair labour practices includes the right not to be unfairly dismissed and is given effect to by section 185 of the LRA. The constitutional right not to be unfairly dismissed is given effect to by Chapter VIII of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (the LRA), which provides a remedy for an unfair dismissal. Schedule 8 of the LRA contains a “Code of Good Practice: Dismissal”, which the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (the CCMA) and the Labour Courts must take into account when determining the fairness of a dismissal. The LRA expressly recognises three grounds for termination of the employment contract namely; misconduct on the part of the employee, incapacity due to an employee’s poor work performance, ill health or injury and termination due an employer’s operational requirements. In terms of the LRA, a dismissal must be procedurally and substantively fair. The requirements for procedural and substantive fairness are contained in Schedule 8 of the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal. The provisions of section 185 of the LRA apply to all employers and employees in both the public and the private sectors, with the exception of members of the National Defence Force, the National Intelligence Agency, the South African Secret Service and the South African National Academy of Intelligence. Section 213 of the LRA defines an “employee” as any person, excluding an independent contractor, who works for another person or for the State and who receives, or is entitled to receive, any remuneration and any person who in any manner assists in carrying out or conducting the business of an employer. Section 200A of the LRA sets out the presumption as to who is an employee. This is a guideline to assist in determining who is an employee The Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (the BCEA) sets minimum terms and conditions of employment including the notice of termination of employment. Under the common law an employment contract of employment can be terminated on either the expiration of the agreed period of employment or on completion of the specified task in cases of fixed-term contracts. Also, in terms of general contract principles an employment contract may be terminated by notice duly given by either party or by summary termination in the event of a material breach on the part of either party. The death of either party may terminate the employment contract. However, the death of an employer will not necessarily lead to the contract’s termination. An employment contract may also terminate by operation of law or effluxion of time namely retirement and coming into being of fixed-term contracts, by mutual agreement, employee resigning, due to insolvency of the employer and due to supervening impossibility of performance. In the circumstances indicated above, the termination of the contract of employment does not constitute dismissal. This means that the CCMA and the Labour Court do not have jurisdiction to determine should the employee allege that his or her dismissal was unfair. It has been argued that the instances where a termination of a contract of employment is terminated, but there is no dismissal should be scrutinised to avoid a situation where employees are deprived of protection afforded by the fundamental right not to be unfairly dismissed. There have been some instances where employment contracts contain clauses that provide for automatic termination of employment contracts. It has been held by the courts in various decisions that such clauses are against public policy and thus invalid. The Labour Court stated that a contractual device that renders the termination of a contract something other than a dismissal is exactly the exploitation the LRA prohibits There are various court decisions providing guidelines of circumstances in which termination of employment may be regarded as not constituting dismissal. The main focus of the treatise is to discuss these instances and critically analyse the approach taken by forums like the CCMA, bargaining councils and the Labour Court in dealing with such instances
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
- Authors: Sipuka, Sibongile
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor discipline -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10258 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1021152
- Description: Section 23 of the Constitution provides that everyone has a right to fair labour practice. The constitutional right to fair labour practices includes the right not to be unfairly dismissed and is given effect to by section 185 of the LRA. The constitutional right not to be unfairly dismissed is given effect to by Chapter VIII of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (the LRA), which provides a remedy for an unfair dismissal. Schedule 8 of the LRA contains a “Code of Good Practice: Dismissal”, which the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (the CCMA) and the Labour Courts must take into account when determining the fairness of a dismissal. The LRA expressly recognises three grounds for termination of the employment contract namely; misconduct on the part of the employee, incapacity due to an employee’s poor work performance, ill health or injury and termination due an employer’s operational requirements. In terms of the LRA, a dismissal must be procedurally and substantively fair. The requirements for procedural and substantive fairness are contained in Schedule 8 of the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal. The provisions of section 185 of the LRA apply to all employers and employees in both the public and the private sectors, with the exception of members of the National Defence Force, the National Intelligence Agency, the South African Secret Service and the South African National Academy of Intelligence. Section 213 of the LRA defines an “employee” as any person, excluding an independent contractor, who works for another person or for the State and who receives, or is entitled to receive, any remuneration and any person who in any manner assists in carrying out or conducting the business of an employer. Section 200A of the LRA sets out the presumption as to who is an employee. This is a guideline to assist in determining who is an employee The Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (the BCEA) sets minimum terms and conditions of employment including the notice of termination of employment. Under the common law an employment contract of employment can be terminated on either the expiration of the agreed period of employment or on completion of the specified task in cases of fixed-term contracts. Also, in terms of general contract principles an employment contract may be terminated by notice duly given by either party or by summary termination in the event of a material breach on the part of either party. The death of either party may terminate the employment contract. However, the death of an employer will not necessarily lead to the contract’s termination. An employment contract may also terminate by operation of law or effluxion of time namely retirement and coming into being of fixed-term contracts, by mutual agreement, employee resigning, due to insolvency of the employer and due to supervening impossibility of performance. In the circumstances indicated above, the termination of the contract of employment does not constitute dismissal. This means that the CCMA and the Labour Court do not have jurisdiction to determine should the employee allege that his or her dismissal was unfair. It has been argued that the instances where a termination of a contract of employment is terminated, but there is no dismissal should be scrutinised to avoid a situation where employees are deprived of protection afforded by the fundamental right not to be unfairly dismissed. There have been some instances where employment contracts contain clauses that provide for automatic termination of employment contracts. It has been held by the courts in various decisions that such clauses are against public policy and thus invalid. The Labour Court stated that a contractual device that renders the termination of a contract something other than a dismissal is exactly the exploitation the LRA prohibits There are various court decisions providing guidelines of circumstances in which termination of employment may be regarded as not constituting dismissal. The main focus of the treatise is to discuss these instances and critically analyse the approach taken by forums like the CCMA, bargaining councils and the Labour Court in dealing with such instances
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
Termination of the contract of employment not constituting dismissal
- Sipuka, Sibongile, Supervisor details
- Authors: Sipuka, Sibongile , Supervisor details
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor discipline -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/4811 , vital:20701
- Description: Section 23 of the Constitution provides that everyone has a right to fair labour practice. The constitutional right to fair labour practices includes the right not to be unfairly dismissed and is given effect to by section 185 of the LRA. The constitutional right not to be unfairly dismissed is given effect to by Chapter VIII of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (the LRA), which provides a remedy for an unfair dismissal. Schedule 8 of the LRA contains a “Code of Good Practice: Dismissal”, which the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (the CCMA) and the Labour Courts must take into account when determining the fairness of a dismissal. The LRA expressly recognises three grounds for termination of the employment contract namely; misconduct on the part of the employee, incapacity due to an employee’s poor work performance, ill health or injury and termination due an employer’s operational requirements. In terms of the LRA, a dismissal must be procedurally and substantively fair. The requirements for procedural and substantive fairness are contained in Schedule 8 of the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal. The provisions of section 185 of the LRA apply to all employers and employees in both the public and the private sectors, with the exception of members of the National Defence Force, the National Intelligence Agency, the South African Secret Service and the South African National Academy of Intelligence. Section 213 of the LRA defines an “employee” as any person, excluding an independent contractor, who works for another person or for the State and who receives, or is entitled to receive, any remuneration and any person who in any manner assists in carrying out or conducting the business of an employer. Section 200A of the LRA sets out the presumption as to who is an employee. This is a guideline to assist in determining who is an employee. The Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (the BCEA) sets minimum terms and conditions of employment including the notice of termination of employment. Under the common law an employment contract of employment can be terminated on either the expiration of the agreed period of employment or on completion of the specified task in cases of fixed-term contracts. Also, in terms of general contract principles an employment contract may be terminated by notice duly given by either party or by summary termination in the event of a material breach on the part of either party. The death of either party may terminate the employment contract. However, the death of an employer will not necessarily lead to the contract’s termination. An employment contract may also terminate by operation of law or effluxion of time namely retirement and coming into being of fixed-term contracts, by mutual agreement, employee resigning, due to insolvency of the employer and due to supervening impossibility of performance. In the circumstances indicated above, the termination of the contract of employment does not constitute dismissal. This means that the CCMA and the Labour Court do not have jurisdiction to determine should the employee allege that his or her dismissal was unfair. It has been argued that the instances where a termination of a contract of employment is terminated, but there is no dismissal should be scrutinised to avoid a situation where employees are deprived of protection afforded by the fundamental right not to be unfairly dismissed. There have been some instances where employment contracts contain clauses that provide for automatic termination of employment contracts. It has been held by the courts in various decisions that such clauses are against public policy and thus invalid. The Labour Court stated that a contractual device that renders the termination of a contract something other than a dismissal is exactly the exploitation the LRA prohibits. There are various court decisions providing guidelines of circumstances in which termination of employment may be regarded as not constituting dismissal. The main focus of the treatise is to discuss these instances and critically analyse the approach taken by forums like the CCMA, bargaining councils and the Labour Court in dealing with such instances.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
- Authors: Sipuka, Sibongile , Supervisor details
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor discipline -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/4811 , vital:20701
- Description: Section 23 of the Constitution provides that everyone has a right to fair labour practice. The constitutional right to fair labour practices includes the right not to be unfairly dismissed and is given effect to by section 185 of the LRA. The constitutional right not to be unfairly dismissed is given effect to by Chapter VIII of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (the LRA), which provides a remedy for an unfair dismissal. Schedule 8 of the LRA contains a “Code of Good Practice: Dismissal”, which the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (the CCMA) and the Labour Courts must take into account when determining the fairness of a dismissal. The LRA expressly recognises three grounds for termination of the employment contract namely; misconduct on the part of the employee, incapacity due to an employee’s poor work performance, ill health or injury and termination due an employer’s operational requirements. In terms of the LRA, a dismissal must be procedurally and substantively fair. The requirements for procedural and substantive fairness are contained in Schedule 8 of the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal. The provisions of section 185 of the LRA apply to all employers and employees in both the public and the private sectors, with the exception of members of the National Defence Force, the National Intelligence Agency, the South African Secret Service and the South African National Academy of Intelligence. Section 213 of the LRA defines an “employee” as any person, excluding an independent contractor, who works for another person or for the State and who receives, or is entitled to receive, any remuneration and any person who in any manner assists in carrying out or conducting the business of an employer. Section 200A of the LRA sets out the presumption as to who is an employee. This is a guideline to assist in determining who is an employee. The Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (the BCEA) sets minimum terms and conditions of employment including the notice of termination of employment. Under the common law an employment contract of employment can be terminated on either the expiration of the agreed period of employment or on completion of the specified task in cases of fixed-term contracts. Also, in terms of general contract principles an employment contract may be terminated by notice duly given by either party or by summary termination in the event of a material breach on the part of either party. The death of either party may terminate the employment contract. However, the death of an employer will not necessarily lead to the contract’s termination. An employment contract may also terminate by operation of law or effluxion of time namely retirement and coming into being of fixed-term contracts, by mutual agreement, employee resigning, due to insolvency of the employer and due to supervening impossibility of performance. In the circumstances indicated above, the termination of the contract of employment does not constitute dismissal. This means that the CCMA and the Labour Court do not have jurisdiction to determine should the employee allege that his or her dismissal was unfair. It has been argued that the instances where a termination of a contract of employment is terminated, but there is no dismissal should be scrutinised to avoid a situation where employees are deprived of protection afforded by the fundamental right not to be unfairly dismissed. There have been some instances where employment contracts contain clauses that provide for automatic termination of employment contracts. It has been held by the courts in various decisions that such clauses are against public policy and thus invalid. The Labour Court stated that a contractual device that renders the termination of a contract something other than a dismissal is exactly the exploitation the LRA prohibits. There are various court decisions providing guidelines of circumstances in which termination of employment may be regarded as not constituting dismissal. The main focus of the treatise is to discuss these instances and critically analyse the approach taken by forums like the CCMA, bargaining councils and the Labour Court in dealing with such instances.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015