no abstract available / Jurisprudence / M.A. (Spesialisering in Arbeidsreg)

no abstract available / Jurisprudence / M.A. (Spesialisering in Arbeidsreg)

No abstract available / Jurisprudence / LL.M.

Text in Afrikaans / Werknemers is benewens sekere hoogs uitsonderlike gevalle altyd voor ontslag op substantiewe - en prosessuele billikheid geregtig, hetsy in 'n individuele ofkollektiewe verband. Prosessuele billikheid in besonder het 'n inherente waarde, o.a. omdat die uiteinde van 'n proses nie voorspel kan word nie. Die werkgewer word ook daardeur in staat gestel om die feite te bekom, en arbeidsvrede word daardeur gehandhaaf. Van verdere belang vir prosessuele billikheid is die nakoming van eie of ooreengekome prosedures, die beskikbaarstelling van genoegsame inligting, voorafkennisgewing en bona fide optrede deur die werkgewer. Die primere remedie in die geval van 'n onbillike ontslag is herindiensstelling, alhoewel herindiensstelling nie in die geval van 'n prosessuele onbillike ontslag beveel behoort te word nie. Die riglyne soos in die verlede deur die howe en arbiters ontwikkel is grootliks in die Konsepwet op Arbeids= verhoudinge, soos bevestig in die Wet op Arbeidsverhoudinge, 1995, gekodifiseer. / Prior to dismissal employees are always entitled to substantive - and procedural fairness, be it in an individual or a collective context, subject to highly exceptional circumstances. Procedural fairness in particular has an inherent value, inter alia because the outcome of a process cannot be predicted. The employer also thereby establishes the facts and by conducting a process, labour peace is promoted. Also of importance for procedural fairness is adherance to own or agreed procedures, providing the employee with sufficient information, prior notification and bona fide conduct by the employer. The primary remedy in the case of an unfair dismissal is reinstatement, though reinstatement should not follow in the case of a dismissal which is (only) procedurally unfair. The guidelines as developed by the courts and arbitrators have largely been codified in the Draft Labour Relations Bill, as subsequently confirmed in the Labour Relations Act, 1995. / Mercentile Law / LL. M.

No abstract available / Jurisprudence / LL.M.

Text in Afrikaans / Werknemers is benewens sekere hoogs uitsonderlike gevalle altyd voor ontslag op substantiewe - en prosessuele billikheid geregtig, hetsy in 'n individuele ofkollektiewe verband. Prosessuele billikheid in besonder het 'n inherente waarde, o.a. omdat die uiteinde van 'n proses nie voorspel kan word nie. Die werkgewer word ook daardeur in staat gestel om die feite te bekom, en arbeidsvrede word daardeur gehandhaaf. Van verdere belang vir prosessuele billikheid is die nakoming van eie of ooreengekome prosedures, die beskikbaarstelling van genoegsame inligting, voorafkennisgewing en bona fide optrede deur die werkgewer. Die primere remedie in die geval van 'n onbillike ontslag is herindiensstelling, alhoewel herindiensstelling nie in die geval van 'n prosessuele onbillike ontslag beveel behoort te word nie. Die riglyne soos in die verlede deur die howe en arbiters ontwikkel is grootliks in die Konsepwet op Arbeids= verhoudinge, soos bevestig in die Wet op Arbeidsverhoudinge, 1995, gekodifiseer. / Prior to dismissal employees are always entitled to substantive - and procedural fairness, be it in an individual or a collective context, subject to highly exceptional circumstances. Procedural fairness in particular has an inherent value, inter alia because the outcome of a process cannot be predicted. The employer also thereby establishes the facts and by conducting a process, labour peace is promoted. Also of importance for procedural fairness is adherance to own or agreed procedures, providing the employee with sufficient information, prior notification and bona fide conduct by the employer. The primary remedy in the case of an unfair dismissal is reinstatement, though reinstatement should not follow in the case of a dismissal which is (only) procedurally unfair. The guidelines as developed by the courts and arbitrators have largely been codified in the Draft Labour Relations Bill, as subsequently confirmed in the Labour Relations Act, 1995. / Mercentile Law / LL. M.

A substantial number of employees in South Africa may soon be out of work as the result of their HIV-positive status. The dismissal of an infected employee may be motivated by the fact that he is considered to be incompetent or incapable of doing the work for which he was employed. Customers and fellow employees may refuse to deal with an infected employee, with the result that the employee is dismissed for economic reasons. The nature of the undertaking's activities may be such that the presence of an infected employee constitutes a health risk. For the purposes of carrying out his duty to create and maintain safe working conditions, the employer dismisses the employee. The employer may even force the infected employee to resign. Measures should be taken to improve the situation of infected employees. They include educating employers and employees about the transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus. / Mercentile Law / LL. M.

A substantial number of employees in South Africa may soon be out of work as the result of their HIV-positive status. The dismissal of an infected employee may be motivated by the fact that he is considered to be incompetent or incapable of doing the work for which he was employed. Customers and fellow employees may refuse to deal with an infected employee, with the result that the employee is dismissed for economic reasons. The nature of the undertaking's activities may be such that the presence of an infected employee constitutes a health risk. For the purposes of carrying out his duty to create and maintain safe working conditions, the employer dismisses the employee. The employer may even force the infected employee to resign. Measures should be taken to improve the situation of infected employees. They include educating employers and employees about the transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus. / Mercentile Law / LL. M.

The position of the whistle-blower is known to be a precarious one, with the whistle-blower often either regarded as a hero or a reprehensible traitor. Various pieces of legislation have attempted to remedy their precarious position, especially within the employment relationship, and in which the whistle-blower more often than not has the most to lose. The study at hand has the specific objective of comparing the position of the whistle-blower in terms of South African Law, against 16 specific measurables, and in comparison with the position of the whistle-blower in New Zealand, Australia (Victoria) and the United Kingdom. In the main, the protection offered to the whistle-blower within the South African context, is embodied within the Protected Disclosure Act 26 of 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the “PDA”).In examining the protection afforded to the whistle-blower in South Africa, it is concluded that the framework involved extends much further than just the mere provisions in the PDA. However, there are admitted challenges in respect of this framework as discussed, both legislative and non-legislative, especially in respect of duties of disclosures placed on persons in circumstances in which concurrent protection is not afforded to the whistle-blower. With reference to the comparison in respect of the measurement parameters set, it was found that the PIDA (UK) meets the least amount of the measurements set, with the PDA A (Australia, Victoria) meeting the most of the measurements; the PDA NZ is equally balanced in meeting and not meeting the measurements and the PDA meeting less of the measurements than not, but still meeting more than the PIDA. It was found that had it not been for the catch-all provision contained in section 4 (1) (b) of the PDA, the PDA would have ranked last. / Mercantile Law / LL. D.

The dissertation examines the applicability of procedural fairness to actions by members of the South African National Defence Forces (SANDF). The research focuses on and uses the South African Defence Force Union v The Minister of South African National Defence Force (SANDU 2010 judgment) to illustrate how procedural fairness should find application in the SANDF, given the sui generis nature of the defence forces. This judgment presented an opportunity to investigate whether the legislative framework that is available in the SANDF is adequate to protect the right to procedural fairness of the members of the SANDF encapsulated in section 33 of the Constitution, 1996. The dissertation examines the relevant sections of the Defence Act, Military Discipline Supplementary Measures Act, Labour Relations Act (LRA), and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) read with sections 23 and 33 of the Constitution to determine whether there is a gap that exists in so far as the protection of the right to procedural fairness of members of the defence forces is concerned. It also examines the Military Discipline Code and the rules and regulations of the Defence Forces. The analysis of the SANDU 2010 judgment demonstrates that PAJA could find application in dismissal or employment related disputes within the SANDF. The scenario that is evidenced from the analysis of the defence force legislative framework is that the legislative framework that is available within the SANDF is inadequate to protect and deal with disputes which arise from allegations of infringement of the right to procedural fairness. This scenario is compounded by the fact that the LRA which is the empowering legislation that was promulgated to give effect to the right to section 23 of the Constitution and to deal with dismissal and employment related disputes, does not apply to members of the SANDF. / Public, Constitutional, and International Law / LL. M.