Vicarious libality for sexual harassment at work
- Authors: Muzuva, Arthurnatious
- Date: 2011
- Subjects: Sexual harassment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Sex discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10233 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1011386 , Sexual harassment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Sex discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: Sexual harassment has been in existence for a long time in the workplace without any attempt to understand, define and effectively combat this rather undesirable and serious form of misconduct. Until fairly recently, the growing problem of sexual harassment and its damaging effect have been given much attention by legal authorities and society at large. The effect of sexual harassment is that it embarrasses or humiliates the victim. The victim may also suffer from trauma which, in turn, affects his/her performance at work. Numerous definitions have been provided on what constitutes sexual harassment. Sexual harassment takes place when a women‟s sexual role overshadows her work role in the eyes of the male, whether it be a supervisor, co-worker, client or customer. In other words, her gender receives more attention than her work. Sexual harassment is also seen as unwanted conduct of a sexual nature that violates the rights of an employee and constitutes a barrier to equity in the workplace.1 The Bill of Rights in the Constitution2 entrenches the rights of everyone. Worth mentioning are the “right to equality”, “the right to dignity”, “the right to privacy” and “the right to fair labour practices”. Furthermore, section 6(3) of the Employment Equity Act3 states that “harassment is a form of unfair discrimination” which is prohibited in terms of section 6(1) of the same Act. Section 60 of the Employment Equity Act deals with statutory vicarious liability where the employer is held liable for his acts and/or omission to take measures to against sexual harassment or a failure to put a grievance procedure in place. Where such an employer has done what is reasonably necessary to prevent and to address sexual harassment, he/she will escape liability for the misconduct of the employee. This section also provides for mechanisms that an employer may employ to minimise liability where harassment has taken place. In addition to statutory vicarious liability is the common law vicarious liability, where the employer is vicariously liable for the delict of the employee. This form of liability is also referred to as “no-fault liability”. The employer will be held liable where the following requirements for vicarious liability in common law are met: firstly, there must be an “employer-employee relationship”, secondly, a “delict must be committed” and thirdly, the “employee must have been acting in the scope or course of employment when the delict was committed”. Liability can also be directly imputed on the employer. In this instance, it has to be proven that “the employer committed an act or omission; the act or omission was unlawful; the act or omission was culpable, intentional or negligent, and a third party suffered harm; either patrimonial damage or injury to personality; and the act or omission caused that harm”.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2011
- Authors: Muzuva, Arthurnatious
- Date: 2011
- Subjects: Sexual harassment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Sex discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10233 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1011386 , Sexual harassment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Sex discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: Sexual harassment has been in existence for a long time in the workplace without any attempt to understand, define and effectively combat this rather undesirable and serious form of misconduct. Until fairly recently, the growing problem of sexual harassment and its damaging effect have been given much attention by legal authorities and society at large. The effect of sexual harassment is that it embarrasses or humiliates the victim. The victim may also suffer from trauma which, in turn, affects his/her performance at work. Numerous definitions have been provided on what constitutes sexual harassment. Sexual harassment takes place when a women‟s sexual role overshadows her work role in the eyes of the male, whether it be a supervisor, co-worker, client or customer. In other words, her gender receives more attention than her work. Sexual harassment is also seen as unwanted conduct of a sexual nature that violates the rights of an employee and constitutes a barrier to equity in the workplace.1 The Bill of Rights in the Constitution2 entrenches the rights of everyone. Worth mentioning are the “right to equality”, “the right to dignity”, “the right to privacy” and “the right to fair labour practices”. Furthermore, section 6(3) of the Employment Equity Act3 states that “harassment is a form of unfair discrimination” which is prohibited in terms of section 6(1) of the same Act. Section 60 of the Employment Equity Act deals with statutory vicarious liability where the employer is held liable for his acts and/or omission to take measures to against sexual harassment or a failure to put a grievance procedure in place. Where such an employer has done what is reasonably necessary to prevent and to address sexual harassment, he/she will escape liability for the misconduct of the employee. This section also provides for mechanisms that an employer may employ to minimise liability where harassment has taken place. In addition to statutory vicarious liability is the common law vicarious liability, where the employer is vicariously liable for the delict of the employee. This form of liability is also referred to as “no-fault liability”. The employer will be held liable where the following requirements for vicarious liability in common law are met: firstly, there must be an “employer-employee relationship”, secondly, a “delict must be committed” and thirdly, the “employee must have been acting in the scope or course of employment when the delict was committed”. Liability can also be directly imputed on the employer. In this instance, it has to be proven that “the employer committed an act or omission; the act or omission was unlawful; the act or omission was culpable, intentional or negligent, and a third party suffered harm; either patrimonial damage or injury to personality; and the act or omission caused that harm”.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2011
Workplace discipline in the public education sector
- Authors: Loliwe, Fezeka Sister
- Date: 2014
- Subjects: Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Labor discipline -- South Africa , Dispute resolution (Law) -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10290 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1020091
- Description: Discipline is crucial in the provision of quality public service work. This is because most citizens are serviced through the public service work. Adhering to rules and orders, exercise of self control and the ability to put needs of others over one’s own needs are fundamental aspects of discipline. Every workplace has its own pieces of legislation that are used as a guide on expected conduct as well as a tool to deal with failure to adhere to the outlined pieces of legislation governing the conduct in the workplace. There are institutions in place that deal with the crafting of the pieces of legislation which clearly outline the manner in which both the employer and employee should conduct themselves as well as rights of both parties as they interact in the employment relationship. The existing pieces of legislation as well as their implementation and relevance in this era needs to be closely scrutinised and critique with proposals within the prescripts of legislation is necessary as some pieces of legislation seem to be conclusive, thereby undermining procedures followed when dealing with cases of misconduct. In any disciplinary process, the sanction should be in line with the process as it has unfolded and not be influenced by how a piece of legislation is crafted. The Public Service Act, Employment of Educators’ Act and the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 are key statutes in dealing with discipline in public education. Sanctions for misconduct are dependent on the gravity of the misconduct. In order to discipline educators, sections 17 and 18 of the Employment of Educators Act are used as guides on processes and procedures to be followed.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2014
- Authors: Loliwe, Fezeka Sister
- Date: 2014
- Subjects: Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Labor discipline -- South Africa , Dispute resolution (Law) -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10290 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1020091
- Description: Discipline is crucial in the provision of quality public service work. This is because most citizens are serviced through the public service work. Adhering to rules and orders, exercise of self control and the ability to put needs of others over one’s own needs are fundamental aspects of discipline. Every workplace has its own pieces of legislation that are used as a guide on expected conduct as well as a tool to deal with failure to adhere to the outlined pieces of legislation governing the conduct in the workplace. There are institutions in place that deal with the crafting of the pieces of legislation which clearly outline the manner in which both the employer and employee should conduct themselves as well as rights of both parties as they interact in the employment relationship. The existing pieces of legislation as well as their implementation and relevance in this era needs to be closely scrutinised and critique with proposals within the prescripts of legislation is necessary as some pieces of legislation seem to be conclusive, thereby undermining procedures followed when dealing with cases of misconduct. In any disciplinary process, the sanction should be in line with the process as it has unfolded and not be influenced by how a piece of legislation is crafted. The Public Service Act, Employment of Educators’ Act and the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 are key statutes in dealing with discipline in public education. Sanctions for misconduct are dependent on the gravity of the misconduct. In order to discipline educators, sections 17 and 18 of the Employment of Educators Act are used as guides on processes and procedures to be followed.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2014
Workplace forums in terms of the labour relations act 66 of 1995
- Authors: Pather, Sivalingam
- Date: 2007
- Subjects: Industrial relations -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Works councils -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Works councils -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10229 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/845 , Industrial relations -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Works councils -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Works councils -- South Africa
- Description: The promulgation into law of the concept of workplace forums has been beset with immense criticism and opposition from organized labour and some quarters of organized business. Last ditch efforts by the Ministerial Task Team had won the day for the inclusion of this controversial provision in the new Labour Relations Act.1 Commentators on the Act tend to agree that the fallout with organized labour at the negotiations has probably set the scene as to whether the provisions would be widely used or not. History has shown that the establishment of such forums in workplaces has been low. In some situations where workplace forums had been established, their continuous sustainability was put into doubt. This has led to the de-establishment of some of these forums in some workplaces. Various reasons were provided, but the prime factors for its failure could be traced back to the negotiations at NEDLAC. The unions opposed the original proposal by government that minority unions and even non-union employees can trigger the establishment of a workplace forum and insisted that this be restricted to majority unions. The voluntary nature regarding the establishment of a workplace forum and the trigger that only a majority union can invoke the provisions has still seen unions reluctant to utilize the provisions since it did not serve their purpose. The aims of the provisions, namely to increase workplace democracy, was therefore thwarted in favour of more informal procedures. Although the idea is a noble one, it is argued that the introduction of the provisions was ill-timed and inappropriate. The lesson that the legislature can take is that for any provision to be a success, buy-in from all stakeholders is paramount. Research has shown that there was a steady decline in the establishment of workplace forums. Since December 2004 there was not a single application received by the Commission for Conciliation, mediation and Arbitration. There is also doubt as to whether any of the Forums that were previously established are still functional. What is certain is that statutory workplace forums is not at the forefront as a vehicle for change that was envisaged in the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanied the new Labour Relations Act. What is also certain is that employers and employees are utilizing other forums to ensure workplace participation. These forums, however, only provide a voice to unionized workers. The vast majority of non-union workers remain voiceless. The proposed amendments in 2002 that intimated that the trigger be any union and not only majority unions failed to be passed into law. Perhaps it is that type of catalyst that is required to give life to the provisions. The future of workplace forums in South Africa is bleak and will continue to be if there is no intervention by the parties at NEDLAC to revive it. A complete revamp of the legislation would be required for such a revival. Some commentators have made meaningful suggestions on changes that can be made to the legislation to make workplace forums more attractive. Some have suggested it be scrapped altogether and future workplace participatory structures should be left to the parties to embrace voluntarily. Workplace forums are a novel innovation with great potential to encourage workplace democracy. There is nothing wrong with the concept. The application of such forums in the South African context is what is concerning. Perhaps prior experience and experimentation with similar type forums have tarnished workplace participation. The strategies by the previous regime and some employers have caused such participation to equate to co-option. Perhaps not enough spade work was done to ensure that the climate and attitude of the parties was conducive for its introduction. What is paramount no matter the form it takes is that workplace participation is crucial for economic growth and the introduction of new work methods to improve productivity. Without the establishment of such forums, whether voluntary or statutory, the ‘second channel principle’ that promotes non-adversarial workplace joint decision-making would be lost and conflict based participation could spiral leading to economic disaster.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2007
- Authors: Pather, Sivalingam
- Date: 2007
- Subjects: Industrial relations -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Works councils -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Works councils -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10229 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/845 , Industrial relations -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Works councils -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Works councils -- South Africa
- Description: The promulgation into law of the concept of workplace forums has been beset with immense criticism and opposition from organized labour and some quarters of organized business. Last ditch efforts by the Ministerial Task Team had won the day for the inclusion of this controversial provision in the new Labour Relations Act.1 Commentators on the Act tend to agree that the fallout with organized labour at the negotiations has probably set the scene as to whether the provisions would be widely used or not. History has shown that the establishment of such forums in workplaces has been low. In some situations where workplace forums had been established, their continuous sustainability was put into doubt. This has led to the de-establishment of some of these forums in some workplaces. Various reasons were provided, but the prime factors for its failure could be traced back to the negotiations at NEDLAC. The unions opposed the original proposal by government that minority unions and even non-union employees can trigger the establishment of a workplace forum and insisted that this be restricted to majority unions. The voluntary nature regarding the establishment of a workplace forum and the trigger that only a majority union can invoke the provisions has still seen unions reluctant to utilize the provisions since it did not serve their purpose. The aims of the provisions, namely to increase workplace democracy, was therefore thwarted in favour of more informal procedures. Although the idea is a noble one, it is argued that the introduction of the provisions was ill-timed and inappropriate. The lesson that the legislature can take is that for any provision to be a success, buy-in from all stakeholders is paramount. Research has shown that there was a steady decline in the establishment of workplace forums. Since December 2004 there was not a single application received by the Commission for Conciliation, mediation and Arbitration. There is also doubt as to whether any of the Forums that were previously established are still functional. What is certain is that statutory workplace forums is not at the forefront as a vehicle for change that was envisaged in the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanied the new Labour Relations Act. What is also certain is that employers and employees are utilizing other forums to ensure workplace participation. These forums, however, only provide a voice to unionized workers. The vast majority of non-union workers remain voiceless. The proposed amendments in 2002 that intimated that the trigger be any union and not only majority unions failed to be passed into law. Perhaps it is that type of catalyst that is required to give life to the provisions. The future of workplace forums in South Africa is bleak and will continue to be if there is no intervention by the parties at NEDLAC to revive it. A complete revamp of the legislation would be required for such a revival. Some commentators have made meaningful suggestions on changes that can be made to the legislation to make workplace forums more attractive. Some have suggested it be scrapped altogether and future workplace participatory structures should be left to the parties to embrace voluntarily. Workplace forums are a novel innovation with great potential to encourage workplace democracy. There is nothing wrong with the concept. The application of such forums in the South African context is what is concerning. Perhaps prior experience and experimentation with similar type forums have tarnished workplace participation. The strategies by the previous regime and some employers have caused such participation to equate to co-option. Perhaps not enough spade work was done to ensure that the climate and attitude of the parties was conducive for its introduction. What is paramount no matter the form it takes is that workplace participation is crucial for economic growth and the introduction of new work methods to improve productivity. Without the establishment of such forums, whether voluntary or statutory, the ‘second channel principle’ that promotes non-adversarial workplace joint decision-making would be lost and conflict based participation could spiral leading to economic disaster.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2007