Includes bibliographical references (leaves 66-69). / The south east and cape flats regions of Cape Town is home to abundant supplies of cheap and available unskilled labour. With the awareness that Cape Town may be slowly following the developmental path of Johannesburg and many other cities of the world, as decentralization, suburbanization, and the overall processes of economic 'tertiarisation' and urban transformation encompass the entire structure and culture of the city, we wonder about how the cities unskilled workforces are faring. Development has focused on the north of the city while the south east has been bypassed, causing residents to have to travel far out to find jobs and work. There is a clear spatial mismatch between places of work and places of residence for the workers of the South east, and overcoming this disconnection is challenged further by an inefficient and expensive public transport service, upon which they are fully dependent. By way of the interviews with businesses from various industrial areas in Cape Town, this thesis shows that many owners and management do not place much importance on where their workers, in particular unskilled and semi-skilled manual workers live and how they travel. It seems that when choosing a location for their businesses, size, price, and availability may limit owners' options of location choice and interviews reveal that owners may be responding to rather than driving development. Findings reveal that unskilled manual workers typically reside in the south east, while business owners, management and other white collar workers typically live in the northern and southern suburbs, as well as other central areas. Furthermore, transport patterns were evaluated and it is clear that the unskilled workers rely heavily on public transport while higher skilled occupational groups either have their own car, or are part of lift-clubs. The problem of a spatial mismatch is clearly skewed towards workers of the south east who rely on public transport, by intensifying the burdens of commuting times and costs. A further finding is that many businesses resort to highly informal methods of recruitment, such as word-of-mouth and internal referral techniques, revealing the significance of social networks in gaining access to job opportunities. This is especially important for workers trying to find employment in areas outside of the traditional economic nodes as it is expensive to commute to those areas regularly in search of employment. Having access to those businesses through employed family members, neighbours and relatives, is therefore critical.

No description available.

<p>The Employment Protection Act (1982:80; LAS) is one of the cornerstones of the labour law that regulates the relationship between employer and employee. The central rule as stated in 4 § LAS is valid for an indefinite term. LAS is a semi-optional law in accordance with 2 § LAS which facilitates deviation from the central rule.</p><p>Temporary employment is dealt with in 5 and 6 §§ LAS, regulations and collective bargaining agreements. The purpose of the legislative change on July 12007 was to simplify the use of temporary employment and to make the law more predictable and easier to interpret. The previous law was unnecessarily difficult for the employer to know when to put into practice. The government's objective was to limit employer's possibilities of keeping an employee on a temporary contract for a longer period of time. Shortening thetime that an employee can be on a temporary contract from three to two years during a five-year period with the same employer will increase the security and confidence of theemployee. Temporary employment contracts are an important way into the labour market for young people or for people with little work experience. These contracts also contribute to a more flexible and adaptable labour market even though the protection for the individual employee may be reduced.</p><p>The Government's bill suggested that temporary employment contracts should be entered into by either general fixed term employment, temporary substitute employment, seasonal employment or when the employee has attained the age of 67. Fixed term employment can be entered into without the employer giving particular reasons as to why, but the employer does have to show there is a need for contract work as opposed to permanent employees.</p><p>The Labour Court has defined temporary substitute work but it has not been made clear by laws or preparatory work. To employ temporary substitute workers, it is required that one of the permanent workforce is temporarily absent, or it has to be clearly stated in the employment agreement that the position is on a temporary substitute basis. It is also required that the employer state who the position is a substitute for in the permanent workforce as well as for how long the temporary position will be held. Seasonal employment can be entered into for certain periods of time/seasons if the work is dependent on the seasonal variations of the year. The aim for contracts for temporary employment for people over the age of 67 is to make it possible for older people to stay in employment after the retirement age.</p><p>Through the empirical study it was expressed that the interpretation of 5 § LAS is not clearly constructed and that the practitioner must look in preliminary work and other legal practices to establish the meaning of the legislator. For this reason, 5 § LAS is unclear for the individual employer and employee. It should be discussed as to whether the law should be redrafted.</p>

The Employment Protection Act (1982:80; LAS) is one of the cornerstones of the labour law that regulates the relationship between employer and employee. The central rule as stated in 4 § LAS is valid for an indefinite term. LAS is a semi-optional law in accordance with 2 § LAS which facilitates deviation from the central rule. Temporary employment is dealt with in 5 and 6 §§ LAS, regulations and collective bargaining agreements. The purpose of the legislative change on July 12007 was to simplify the use of temporary employment and to make the law more predictable and easier to interpret. The previous law was unnecessarily difficult for the employer to know when to put into practice. The government's objective was to limit employer's possibilities of keeping an employee on a temporary contract for a longer period of time. Shortening thetime that an employee can be on a temporary contract from three to two years during a five-year period with the same employer will increase the security and confidence of theemployee. Temporary employment contracts are an important way into the labour market for young people or for people with little work experience. These contracts also contribute to a more flexible and adaptable labour market even though the protection for the individual employee may be reduced. The Government's bill suggested that temporary employment contracts should be entered into by either general fixed term employment, temporary substitute employment, seasonal employment or when the employee has attained the age of 67. Fixed term employment can be entered into without the employer giving particular reasons as to why, but the employer does have to show there is a need for contract work as opposed to permanent employees. The Labour Court has defined temporary substitute work but it has not been made clear by laws or preparatory work. To employ temporary substitute workers, it is required that one of the permanent workforce is temporarily absent, or it has to be clearly stated in the employment agreement that the position is on a temporary substitute basis. It is also required that the employer state who the position is a substitute for in the permanent workforce as well as for how long the temporary position will be held. Seasonal employment can be entered into for certain periods of time/seasons if the work is dependent on the seasonal variations of the year. The aim for contracts for temporary employment for people over the age of 67 is to make it possible for older people to stay in employment after the retirement age. Through the empirical study it was expressed that the interpretation of 5 § LAS is not clearly constructed and that the practitioner must look in preliminary work and other legal practices to establish the meaning of the legislator. For this reason, 5 § LAS is unclear for the individual employer and employee. It should be discussed as to whether the law should be redrafted.

Please read abstract in the dissertation Copyright / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2012. / Mercantile Law / unrestricted

The thesis explores the interaction of the economic phenomenon of 'economic crisis' with the legal phenomenon of Collective Labour Law (CLL). This interaction is the thesis' main problematique. Rather than undertaking an all-encompassing investigation, it seeks to modestly contribute some new theoretical and comparative perspectives on the problematique. These perspectives are of potential value both to the highly underdeveloped area of the theorisation on economic crises and CLL and to the comparative labour law literature. On the theoretical side, the thesis puts forward a novel Marxist-critical theoretical framework for understanding the crisis' operation of CLL. Building successively on the Marxist-critical insights of a fundamental contradiction between the (capitalism) reproductive and (worker) protective function of CLL, the crisis theories' common assertion of economic rationalisation as the primary crisis response and a joint reading of Gramscian counterhegemony and Habermas' theory of legitimation crisis, a theoretical framework is constructed around a proposed concept: crisis (dis)equilibrium. These (dis)equilibria, which arguably determine the course of CLL's crisis developments are composed of two fundamental opposing forces: the force of economic rationalisation, pushing for reforms dictated by the need for intense capitalist restructuring and the opposing counter-legitimation force, which reflects the level of socio-political threat of withdrawal of support to the prevailing economic system or at least to the reforms dictated by economic rationalisation. The comparative side that serves also as a testing empirical ground for the theoretical framework, consists of an extensive interrogation of the recent crisis CLL trajectories in Greece and the UK. For Greece, the analysis observes and accounts for a dramatic collapse of the pre-crisis protective CLL edifice as a result of multiple and abrupt far-reaching CLL reforms bringing about the neo-liberal crisis movement. Subsequently, the thesis offers a response to why the protective constitutionalisation of CLL rights in Greece failed to prevent the de-construction by designating a de-constitutionalisation triangle of normative spheres. The triangle maps and explains how the neoliberal-oriented EU-IMF bailout conditionality prevailed over domestic-constitutional and transnational labour rights normative spheres through identifying a series of 'strong' and 'weak' legal and non-legal interactions. For the UK, the analysis dismisses a suggestion of a complete stasis during the crisis. Instead, it ascertains and accounts for a further -more gradual- neo-liberal consolidating crisis movement of UK's pre-crisis neo-liberal CLL paradigm. Hence the British crisis movement is described as neo-liberal continuity by consolidation. Very importantly, the thesis observes a significant crisis de-constitutionalisation process of CLL in the UK, which takes the shape of a constitutional attack on the political voice of unions by regulatory reforms. Eventually, the thesis finds a comparative crisis pattern of a 'Great Neo-liberal Convergence' between the two previously diametrically opposite CLL systems, since they moved closer and toward the neo-liberal end during the crisis. The 'neo-liberal convergence' finding is situated as a supportive case for the convergence theorists within the convergence/non-convergence debate over whether the European CLL systems are to converge. Moreover, the analysis demonstrates the explanatory value of the Crisis Equilibrium theoretical framework for understanding the crisis trajectories in both countries and suggests that crisis developments confirm the heteronomy of CLL to the theoreticallyidentified dialectic between the capitalist force of economic rationalisation and the social force of counter-legitimation.

This work explores the evolutionary dynamic exhibited by the trajectory of unfair dismissal law in Britain and Australia. A different comparative evolutionary dynamic is observed in the phase leading up to the enactment of a statutory unfair dismissal scheme and in the period subsequent to enactment. It is argued that the shared common law origin of the legal systems of Britain and Australia masks significant divergence in their respective labour law traditions. Whilst collective laissez-faire in Britain, and conciliation and arbitration in Australia both sought to secure industrial peace, these divergent traditions operated in a manner particular to their jurisdiction in constraining the evolution of a statutory unfair dismissal law. It was only when these traditions underwent severe economic, social and political challenges that they faced a crisis of legitimacy and new ideas for labour law were canvassed. Although occurring over twenty years apart, the breakdown of Britain’s and Australia’s labour law traditions saw the juridification of domestic labour law, with a central reform being the inception of a statutory right protecting against unfair dismissal. Despite emerging from divergent legal traditions and according to different timeframes, the trajectory of unfair dismissal law subsequent to its enactment was to converge upon a common theme of peeling back the statutory superstructure in favour of localised and alternative dispute resolution. Although these developments are diachronistic across the two jurisdictions, this evolutionary dynamic of divergence giving way to convergence is revealing of a high degree of path dependency as between the unfair dismissal laws of Britain and Australia.

<p>Denna uppsats är en komparativ studie mellan svensk och norsk arbetslagstiftning. Arbetet belyser likheter och skillnader mellan länderna i vad som utgör saklig grund för alkoholrelaterade uppsägningar. Vid en överskådlig blick mellan ländernas arbetslagstiftning är det mycket som kan förefalla lika då den svenska lagen om anställningsskydd ligger som förebild för den norska motsvarigheten arbeidsmiljøloven. Vid en närmare studie upptäcker man dock skillnader i ländernas rättstillämpning gällande synen på alkoholmissbruk på arbetsplatsen. I Sverige görs det en skillnad mellan alkoholmissbruk av misskötselkaraktär och alkoholmissbruk av sjukdomskaraktär. När arbetstagaren i Sverige får bevisat att dennes alkoholmissbruk är av sjukdomskaraktär får han ett förstärkt anställningsskydd. I den norska rättstillämpningen görs det ingen skillnad på om alkoholmissbruket beror på en sjukdom eller inte. Det finns inget förbud mot att vara alkoholist eller sjuk på arbetsplatsen i Norge. Dessa arbetstagare har ett anställningsskydd under sin sjukfrånvaro som sträcker sig i tolv månader. Det är dock förbjudet att vara onykter på arbetsplatsen och därmed kan det vara saklig grund för uppsägning, även efter en enstaka förseelse.</p><p>Slutsatsen av vårt arbete är att den svenska rättstillämpningen vid alkoholmissbruk på arbetsplatsen innebär anställningstrygghet och ett arbetsgivaransvar för att behålla alkoholmissbrukaren i arbetslivet. Den norska rättstillämpningen innebär ett klarare ställningstagande gentemot alkohol i arbetslivet, vilket medför att säkerheten på arbetsplatsen och det individuella ansvaret ställs i fokus.</p>

<p>Uppsatsens syfte är att beskriva, diskutera och analysera arbetsmiljölagens bestämmelser med fokusering på ansvar, skyldigheter och samverkan. Vilka skyldigheter har arbetsgivare och arbetstagare gällande lagar, föreskrifter och förordningar inom arbetsmiljön? Vilka kan konsekvenserna bli när bestämmelserna inte respekteras och efterlevs? Arbetsmiljölagens syfte, att förhindra ohälsa och olycksfall, skall bedrivas förebyggande.</p><p>Förutom att beskriva gällande rätt genom lagtext, förarbeten och praxis har vi utfört en empirisk undersökning på ett stort företag inom pappersindustrin. Genom intervjuer och skriftliga dokument från företaget har vi kunnat beskriva berörda paragrafer utifrån ett praktiskt perspektiv.</p><p>Huvudansvaret för att förhindra ohälsa och olycksfall på ett företag innehas av arbetsgivaren. En arbetsgivare kan vara både en fysisk person, i form av en individ, samt en juridisk person, i form av exempelvis ett företag eller en myndighet. Både en fysisk och en juridisk person kan bli skyldig att betala en straffavgift när arbetsmiljön missköts. Det kan dock endast bli en fysisk person som blir straffansvarig vid brott mot arbetsmiljön, exempelvis när en arbetstagare skadas eller omkommer i samband med arbetet, som orsakats av brister i arbetsmiljön. En arbetstagare kan aldrig bli dömd för arbetsmiljöbrott, han kan dock bli dömd enligt de generella straffsatserna som finns vid exempelvis vållande till annans död. En arbetstagare har, enligt arbetsmiljölagen, skyldigheter och ansvar precis som sin arbetsgivare. Arbetstagaren skall samarbeta och respektera de åtgärder som finns i det förebyggande arbetet för en god arbetsmiljö. De finns även reglerat att det förebyggande arbetet för en god arbetsmiljö skall ske genom samverkan mellan arbetsgivare och arbetstagare. Samverkan har en stor betydelse för att arbetsmiljön skall förbättras och anpassas till verksamheten. För att samverkansarbetet skall fungera så effektivt som möjligt finns skyddsombud och skyddskommittéer som skall företräda, verka och vaka över verksamheten. Varken skyddsombud eller ledamöterna i skyddskommittéerna har något straffansvar gällande arbetsmiljön. Deras skyldigheter och ansvar är likställda med de övriga arbetstagarnas. Arbetsmiljöverket är ett tillsynsorgan som likväl skall vaka över verksamheten. Myndigheten fyller en viktig funktion i det förebyggande arbetet genom sina föreskrifter som kompletterar arbetsmiljölagen. Trots föreskrifternas funktion som kompletterande och konkretiserande, så lämnar de inga praktiska exempel på hur verksamheten skall skötas. Något som kanske inte är möjligt, då alla slags verksamheter med arbetstagare berörs utav lagen. Den empiriska undersökningen vi genomfört visar på hur ett arbetsmiljöarbete kan bedrivas, med fokus på samverkan, skyldigheter och ansvar. Av de hundratals föreskrifter som finns från arbetsmiljöverket, har vi använt oss mest utav SAM (systematiskt arbetsmiljöarbete), som tydliggör bestämmelserna kring samverkan och ansvar. Vi har även anpassat oss till företaget vid undersökt och riktat in oss på föreskrifterna om truckar. Syftet var att avgränsa det stora företagets verksamhet för att enklare kunna beskriva skyldigheterna.</p><p>För att kunna uppnå målet, att arbeta förebyggande med arbetsmiljön, krävs ett samspel från alla berörda parter. Det krävs tydliga riktlinjer för ansvar, en god samverkan mellan arbetsgivare och arbetstagare samt ett statligt organ som övervakar och vägleder hur bestämmelserna efterlevs. Den empiriska undersökningen visar att detta fungerar väl på det företag vi undersökt. Undersökningen har även tydliggjort hur gällande bestämmelser kan följas och anpassas beroende på verksamhet.</p>

No description available.