The right to be entitled to compensation for injuries sustained in the course of employment has always been an essential component of basic social security rights. Provision is made in the international sphere by the International Labour Organization and the United Nations. In the regional sphere there are standards that apply within the Southern African Development Community, and on a national level the rights are provided in terms of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, and the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, 103 of 1993 (COIDA). COIDA provides for a system of no fault compensation for employees who have sustained injuries or contracted occupational diseases during the course of their employment. “No fault compensation” provides that an employee does not have to prove fault with the employer or any other party in to be entitled to claim compensation. COIDA’s main purpose is to provide for compensation for disablement caused by occupational injuries or diseases sustained or contracted by defined employees in the course of their employment. Section 49 of COIDA provides for compensation for permanent disablements. In terms of section 49, the Commissioner must assess the permanent disablement of the employee by applying Schedule 2 of COIDA, which stipulates percentages of disablement for different injuries or mutilations. By “matching” the injury or mutilation from which the employee is suffering to the corresponding injury or mutilation provided for in Schedule 2, the Commissioner is then able to determine the degree of permanent disablement. Discretions are also granted to the Commissioner in terms of which he is allowed to determine the degree of disablement suffered by an employee under certain circumstances. The nature and amount of compensation awarded depend on the degree of disablement that the employee is afflicted with. Compensation for permanent disablement may be paid either in a lump sum or a monthly pension depending on the degree of disablement determined. Problems arise with the application of both these approaches of determining the permanent disablement of an employee. The guidelines in Schedule 2 have been previously described to be applied “mechanically” with no consideration being given to the individual circumstances of the employee. In practice the discretion granted to the Commissioner in terms of section 49 is often not applied judicially, which has led to numerous objections being lodged against the initial amount of compensation granted. The lack of medical expertise at the initial assessment of the disablement, and the “mechanical application” of Schedule 2, often lead to the incorrect determination of the degree of permanent disablement from which the employee is actually suffering. The determination of the degree of disablement is often not consistent with Schedule 2 of COIDA and results in an unjustifiable amount of compensation granted to the employee which holds no relation to the impairment suffered. The core question that needs to be considered is whether and to what extent the employee is still useful for the labour market in the line of his or her employment, and the disablement should be assessed in the light thereof. / Thesis (LLM (Labour Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013.

The right to be entitled to compensation for injuries sustained in the course of employment has always been an essential component of basic social security rights. Provision is made in the international sphere by the International Labour Organization and the United Nations. In the regional sphere there are standards that apply within the Southern African Development Community, and on a national level the rights are provided in terms of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, and the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, 103 of 1993 (COIDA). COIDA provides for a system of no fault compensation for employees who have sustained injuries or contracted occupational diseases during the course of their employment. “No fault compensation” provides that an employee does not have to prove fault with the employer or any other party in to be entitled to claim compensation. COIDA’s main purpose is to provide for compensation for disablement caused by occupational injuries or diseases sustained or contracted by defined employees in the course of their employment. Section 49 of COIDA provides for compensation for permanent disablements. In terms of section 49, the Commissioner must assess the permanent disablement of the employee by applying Schedule 2 of COIDA, which stipulates percentages of disablement for different injuries or mutilations. By “matching” the injury or mutilation from which the employee is suffering to the corresponding injury or mutilation provided for in Schedule 2, the Commissioner is then able to determine the degree of permanent disablement. Discretions are also granted to the Commissioner in terms of which he is allowed to determine the degree of disablement suffered by an employee under certain circumstances. The nature and amount of compensation awarded depend on the degree of disablement that the employee is afflicted with. Compensation for permanent disablement may be paid either in a lump sum or a monthly pension depending on the degree of disablement determined. Problems arise with the application of both these approaches of determining the permanent disablement of an employee. The guidelines in Schedule 2 have been previously described to be applied “mechanically” with no consideration being given to the individual circumstances of the employee. In practice the discretion granted to the Commissioner in terms of section 49 is often not applied judicially, which has led to numerous objections being lodged against the initial amount of compensation granted. The lack of medical expertise at the initial assessment of the disablement, and the “mechanical application” of Schedule 2, often lead to the incorrect determination of the degree of permanent disablement from which the employee is actually suffering. The determination of the degree of disablement is often not consistent with Schedule 2 of COIDA and results in an unjustifiable amount of compensation granted to the employee which holds no relation to the impairment suffered. The core question that needs to be considered is whether and to what extent the employee is still useful for the labour market in the line of his or her employment, and the disablement should be assessed in the light thereof. / Thesis (LLM (Labour Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013.

Magister Legum - LLM / Chapter 2 of the Constitution contains the Bill of Rights, which ‘enshrines the rights of all people in our country and affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom.’1 By rights being afforded to the employee in the workplace, such rights need to be protected (legislation being implemented by legislature is subjugated by the Bill of Rights).2 Labour legislation being implemented in order to protect the rights afforded to the employees,therefore creating fair labour practice in terms of section 23 of the Constitution. Such legislation needs to take in regards various rights of an employee, such as the right to privacy3 of an employee. This resulted in creating domestic legislation in order to protect employees’ rights to privacy. A detail discusses of how various domestic legislation were implemented to protect the right is discussed in Chapter 2. In addition to the implementation of domestic legislation giving effect to the right to fair labour practices, the Constitution requires that international law be considered when individual and a further international obligations with regards to international standards). Section 39(1)(b) provides that ‘when interpreting the Bill of Rights, a court, tribunal or forum must consider international law’. This means that standards set by the International Labour Organisation and Conventions must be considered when interpreting the right to fair labour practice.4 A detailed discussion is dealt with in Chapter 2. The primary research question of this thesis is ‘is an employee’s right to privacy infringed by requiring a medical condition to be disclosed on a sick note for purposes of statutory sick leave?’ In answering this question, a number of ancillary questions must be answered, including whether doctor and patient confidentiality is breached in disclosing such information on a sick note; to what extent medical information can be disclosed in the medical information; whether there is a potential for misuse of information disclosed on the medical certificate against the employee; whether such disclosure of information could lead to unfair labour practice where the employee can be unfairly discriminated against based on such disclosure and how is privacy is being protected and processed in terms of legislation domestically and foreign legislation.

Workers’ compensation originated internationally because of the need to address the plight of workers and communities left destitute due to occupationally sustained disabilities or death. This study examines how the right to no-fault compensation developed in South Africa in comparison to the comparable law in Canada and Australia. Specific limitations regarding the right to workers' compensation pursuant to the South African compensatory laws were identified. Limitations identified include the persons falling within the ambit of the law, circumstances creating a right to compensation, the right to claims for increased compensation uniquely provided for in South African compensatory law and founded in the negligent conduct of employers as well as common law redress for damages. The background of the administrative remedy in the form of the right to compensation for occupational injuries and diseases ought to be seen in the light of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996. / Mercantile Law / LL. M.

Workers’ compensation originated internationally because of the need to address the plight of workers and communities left destitute due to occupationally sustained disabilities or death. This study examines how the right to no-fault compensation developed in South Africa in comparison to the comparable law in Canada and Australia. Specific limitations regarding the right to workers' compensation pursuant to the South African compensatory laws were identified. Limitations identified include the persons falling within the ambit of the law, circumstances creating a right to compensation, the right to claims for increased compensation uniquely provided for in South African compensatory law and founded in the negligent conduct of employers as well as common law redress for damages. The background of the administrative remedy in the form of the right to compensation for occupational injuries and diseases ought to be seen in the light of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996. / Mercantile Law / LL.M.