Section 213 of the Labour Relations Act defines ’strike’ as 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 the employer and employee, and any reference to “work” this definition includes overtime work, whether it is voluntary or compulsory. According to Mcllroy: “As long as our society is divided between those who own and control the means of production and those who only have the ability to work, strikes will be inevitable because they are the ultimate means workers have of protecting themselves.” 1 The Constitutional Court justified the exclusion of a constitutional right to lock out and the inclusion of a constitutional right to strike by indicating that the right to strike is not equivalent to a right to lock out and is essential for workplace democracy. 2 The right to strike is essential to bolster collective bargaining and thereby to give employees the power to bargain effectively with employers. The employers on the According to the Constitutional Court employers enjoy greater social and economic power compared to individual workers and may exercise a wide range of power against workers through a range of weapons, such as dismissal, the employment of alternative or replacement labour, the unilateral implementation of new terms and conditions of employment, and the exclusion of workers from the workplace. To combat this and have a say in the workplace, the Constitutional Court held that “employees need to act in concert to provide them collectively with sufficient power to bargain effectively with employers and exercise collective power primarily through the mechanism of strike action”. The importance of the right to strike in creating workplace democracy is also reflected in a number of Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court judgments. other hand have economic strength that is used to bargain effectively. That is why the strike enjoys constitutional protection, whereas the lock-out does not. / Abstract

History and Background: The history of statutory labour dispute resolution of South Africa dates back to 1909, when the Transvaal Disputes Prevention Act of 1909 was promulgated which applied only to the Transvaal. The Industrial Conciliation Act of 1924 established industrial councils and ad hoc conciliation boards and excluded black workers from the statutory definition of employee and this resulted in a dual industrial relations system that existed up to 1979. The history of statutory labour dispute resolution of Swaziland dates back to 1980 when the first Industrial Relations Act of 1980 was promulgated which established the first Industrial Court. Research Findings: The dispute resolution systems of South Africa and Swaziland contain both similarities and differences. Lessons for Swaziland include combining general and specific dispute resolution procedures, providing the right of a referring party to apply for condonation for late referral of a dispute, using conciliation-arbitration, making arbitration proceedings public hearings, influence of parties on the appointment of arbitrators, court adjudication, pre-dismissal arbitration, court adjudication by judges only, establishment of a constitutional court, full protection of protected strikes/ lockouts from interdicts, legalization of sympathy strikes, and removal of strikes/ lockout ballot. Lessons for South Africa include plural representation of parties at conciliation and arbitration, re-direction of some disputes by the Labour Court to the Commission for arbitration, reporting of labour disputes direct to the Head of State for determination.

The right to legal representation at internal disciplinary hearings and arbitration proceedings at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), and bargaining councils, where the reason for dismissal relates to misconduct or incapacity is a topic that is raised continuously and often debated. Despite no amendments to labour legislation pertaining to the issue at hand there was however a recent Supreme Court of Appeal judgment. This judgment alters one’s view and clarifies the uncertainties that were created around Rule 25 of the CCMA rules, it also brings a different perspective to the matter, but it will however continue to ignite significant interest. There is no automatic right to legal representation at disciplinary hearings, at the CCMA, and at bargaining councils where disputes involve conduct or capacity and this is the very reason why it is a contentious matter for all parties to grapple with. The dismissal of an employee for misconduct may not be significant to the employer, but the employee’s job is his major asset, and losing his employment is a serious matter to contend with. Lawyers are said to make the process legalistic and expensive, and are blamed for causing delays in the proceedings due to their unavailability and the approach that they adopt. Allowing legal representation places individual employees and small businesses on the back foot because of the costs. Section 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996, provides everyone with the right to fair labour practices, and section 185 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 gives effect to this right and specifies, amongst others, that an employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed. At internal disciplinary hearings, the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 is silent as to what the employee’s rights are with regards to legal representation and the general rule is that legal representation is not permitted, unless the employer’s disciplinary code and procedure or the employee’s contract allows for it, but usually an employee may only be represented by a fellow employee or trade union representative, but not by a legal representative. In MEC: Department of Finance, Economic Affairs and Tourism, Northern Province v Mahumani, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that there exists no right in terms of the common law to legal representation in tribunals other than in courts of law. However, both the common law and PAJA concede that in certain situations it may be unfair to deny a party legal representation. Currently the position in South Africa is that an employee facing disciplinary proceedings can put forward a request for legal representation and the chairperson of the disciplinary hearing will have the discretion to allow or refuse the request. In Hamata v Chairperson, Peninsula Technikon Internal Disciplinary Committee, the Supreme Court of Appeal found that the South African law does not recognise an absolute right to legal representation in fora other than courts of law, and a constitutional right to legal representation only arises in respect of criminal matters.

This treatise will focus on the review of labour arbitration awards provided for under the oversight of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), bargaining councils, statutory councils, accredited private agencies and approved private arbitration tribunals. The general grounds of review applicable to the arbitration awards of the different bodies are set out. Thereafter the case of Carephone (Pty) Limited v Marcus NO & others (1998) 19 ILJ 1452 (LAC) is analysed and the core principles pertaining to the justifiability test are clarified for the first time in the forum of the Labour Appeal Court. The judicial rationale for the relevance and applicability of the test to CCMA arbitration proceedings and criticisms of the test are examined. The justifiability tests are only applicable to review proceedings in CCMA matters and not available to private arbitration review matters. There are however three approaches which are being suggested for the application of the justifiability tests to private arbitration review. Firstly, it is suggested that the Arbitration Act could be interpreted to include the justifiability test under the statutory review grounds. Secondly, the arbitration agreements could be interpreted to include an implied term that the arbitrator is under a duty to give justifiable awards. Finally, it can be submitted that the law should be developed by reading into all arbitration agreements the ability to arbitrators to give justifiable awards. Since the judgment of Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Mines [2007] 12 BLLR 1097 (CC) various critical questions arose in relation to the interpretation and application for the purpose of dealing with subsequent review applications. Firstly, this research paper will seek to establish whether the courts in subsequent matters to the Sidumo judgment have interpreted reasonableness as a test or ground for review. Secondly the research paper will scrutinise case law whether the reviewing court is entitled to rely on and consider reasons other than those provided for by the commissioner in his award to determine inter alia, the reasonableness of his decision arrived at. The Constitutional Court in the Sidumo case rejected the so-called employer’s test, stating that ultimately the commissioner’s sense of fairness is what must prevail and not the employer’s view. Consequently an impartial determination whether or not a dismissal was fair is likely to promote labour peace amongst the labour force. The test arrived at by the Constitutional Court in the Sidumo case for determining whether a decision or arbitration award of a CCMA commissioner is reasonable, is a stringent test that will ensure that such awards are not easily interfered with. The question to be asked in determining whether there has been compliance with the standard is whether the decision of the commissioner is one which a reasonable decision maker could have reached. This approach will underpin the primary objectives of the Labour Relations Act which is the effective resolution of disputes. This finding will be apparent from important cases decided and discussed after the Sidumo landmark ruling.

Thesis (LLM (Public Law))--University of Stellenbosch, 2009. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The first part of this thesis deals with the right of lateral and subjacent support and explains how it should be applied in South African law. The thesis illustrates how the neighbour law principles of lateral support were incorrectly extended to govern conflicts pertaining to subjacent support that arose in South African mining law. From 1911 right up to 2007, these two clearly distinguishable concepts were treated as synonymous principles in both academic writing and case law. The thesis plots the historical development of this extension of lateral support principles to subjacent support conflicts. In doing so, it examines the main source of South Africa’s law of support, namely English law. The thesis then shows how the Supreme Court of Appeal in Anglo Operations Ltd v Sandhurst Estates (Pty) Ltd 2007 (2) SA 363 (SCA) illustrated how the English law doctrine of subjacent support, with all its attendant ramifications, could not be useful in resolving disputes that arise between a land surface owner and a mineral rights holder in South African mining law. The second of half of the thesis investigates the constitutional implications of the Supreme Court of Appeal’s decision in Anglo Operations in light of the systemic changes introduced by the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002. In terms of this new Act, all the mineral and petroleum resources of South Africa are the common heritage of the people of South Africa, and the state is the custodian thereof. This means that landowners are no longer involved in the granting of mineral rights to subsequent holders. In light of the Anglo Operations decision, landowners in the new dispensation of mineral exploitation face the danger of losing the use and enjoyment of some/all their land. The thesis therefore examines the implications of the statutory provisions in South African legislation (new and old) that have/had an impact on the relationship between landowners and mineral right holders with regard to the question of subjacent support, as well as the implications of the Anglo Operations decision for cases where mineral rights have been granted under the statutory framework. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die eerste deel van die tesis handel oor die reg op sydelingse en oppervlakstut en hoe dit in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg toegepas behoort te word. Die tesis wys hoe die bureregbeginsels rakende sydelingse stut verkeerdelik uitgebrei is na konflikte rakende oppervlakstut wat in die Suid-Afrikaanse mynreg ontstaan het. Vanaf 1911 en tot in 2007 is hierdie twee duidelik verskillende konsepte in sowel akademiese geskrifte en in die regspraak as sinonieme behandel. Die tesis sit die historiese ontwikkeling van die uitbreiding van laterale stut-beginsels na oppervlakstut-konflikte uiteen. In die proses word die hoofbron van die Suid-Afrikaanse reg ten aansien van steun, naamlik die Engelse reg, ondersoek. Die tesis wys uit hoe die Hoogste Hof van Appèl in Anglo Operations Ltd v Sandhurst Estates (Pty) Ltd 2007 (2) SA 363 (SCA) beslis het dat die Engelse leerstuk van oppervlakstut met al sy meegaande implikasies nie in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg sinvol aangewend kan word om dispute wat tussen die oppervlakeienaar van grond en die mineraalreghouer ontstaan, op te los nie. Die tweede helfte van die tesis ondersoek die grondwetlike implikasies van die Hoogste Hof van Appèl se beslissing in Anglo Operations in die lig van die sistemiese wysigings wat deur die Wet op Ontwikkeling van Minerale en Petroleumhulpbronne 28 van 2002 tot stand gebring is. Ingevolge die nuwe Wet is alle mineraal- en petroleumhulpbronne die gemeenskaplike erfenis van alle mense van Suid-Afrika en die staat is die bewaarder daarvan. Dit beteken dat grondeienaars nie meer betrokke is by die toekenning van mineraalregte aan houers daarvan nie. In die lig van die Anglo Operations-beslissing loop grondeienaars die gevaar om die voordeel en gebruik van al of dele van hulle grond te verloor. Die tesis ondersoek daarom die implikasies van verskillende bepalings in Suid-Afrikaanse wetgewing (oud en nuut) wat ‘n impak op die verhouding tussen die grondeienaar en die houer van die mineraalregte het, sowel as die implikasies van Anglo Operations vir gevalle waar mineraalregte onder die nuwe statutêre raamwerk en toegeken is.

The study aims to review the regulatory powers exercised by the South African Revenue Services (SARS) with regard to the issuing, decline or revocation of a taxpayer’s tax clearance certificate, to highlight any remedial measures and procedures available to the aggrieved taxpayer in order to protect the right of taxpayers to fair administrative action in their dealings with SARS. Previously, a tax clearance certificate was not issued in terms of any statute or provision of any Tax Act. However, since the introduction of the Tax Administration Act, as amended (TAA), the issuing of the tax clearance certificates are more efficiently regulated. The issuing of tax clearance certificate’s must conform to the values and principles prescribed for under current legislation, and more particularly, as espoused under the Constitution of South Africa, 1996 (the Constitution). However, it has been reported some taxpayer were experiencing unreasonable and incomprehensible delays in obtaining responses to the objections lodged with SARS for assessment. Taxpayers seeking resolution of their disputes with SARS, currently opt to incur litigation costs in order to obtain appropriate relief from the High Courts. Taxpayers must take note that there is nothing in Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) or the common law, which empowers a Court to order an administrator to take action, including the making of a decision which the administrator is not lawfully allowed to make. The study highlights remedial measures and procedures available to the aggrieved taxpayer to prevent the misapplication of fiscal power by SARS in the issuing of the taxpayer’s compliance status, thus protecting the right to fair administrative action in their dealings with SARS. Taxpayers who are aggrieved by a decision taken by the Revenue Authority are encouraged to timeously address their grievances, commencing with the internal dispute resolution remedies provided for within the TAA. / Financial Accounting / M. Compt. (Accounting Sciences)

The thesis analyses selected aspects of domain-name law, mainly from the perspective of trade-mark law. It discusses the evolution of the domain-name system and how it operates as background to a more detailed discussion of the theoretical classification of domain names. The thesis then examines the interplay between trade marks and domain names, and the resolution of domain-name disputes resulting from the inherent tension between these two systems. The main principles of domain-name dispute resolution are identified by way of an analysis of the panel decisions handed down in terms of the international Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the South African domain name dispute resolution regulations. This analysis always addresses, too, the extent to which national trade-mark law principles (with reference to the laws of South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America) apply, and the extent to which this is appropriate. / Private Law / LL.D.

Developing an adjudicative institutional framework for effective social security provisioning in South Africa entails the establishment of a system that gives effect to the rights (of access) to social security and to justice. These rights are protected in the Constitution and in various international law instruments. In the Constitution, the Bill of Rights guarantees everyone the right to have access to social security, including appropriate social assistance for persons who are unable to support themselves and their dependants. It further requires the State to take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of the right to access to social security. Since a dispute resolution (adjudication) framework is an integral part of any comprehensive social security system, it is included in the constitutional obligation of the State. The establishment of a social security adjudication system is an intersection of the right of access to social security and the right of access to justice. The Constitution states that everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum. In addition, other rights protected in the Constitution have a bearing on the realisation of the rights of access to social security and to justice. There is a close correlation between all the rights in the Bill of Rights, as they are interrelated, interdependent and mutually supporting. They must all be read together in the setting of the Constitution as a whole and their interconnectedness must be taken into account in interpreting rights; and in determining whether the State has met its obligations in terms of any one of them. These rights, which include the right to equality (section 9), the right to human dignity (section 10) and the right to just administrative action (section 33) must thus be considered in establishing a social security adjudication system. Also to be considered are other constitutional prerequisites for the establishment of a social security adjudication system, such as the limitation and enforcement of rights (sections 36 and 38 respectively); principles relating to courts and the administration of justice (Chapter 8) and basic values and principles governing public administration (Chapter 10). In establishing a social security adjudication system in South Africa, international law standards and developments in comparative systems must also be taken into account. The Constitution adopts an international law- and comparative law-friendly approach. It states that when interpreting fundamental rights, international law must be considered while foreign law may be considered (section 39). This thesis aims to develop an adjudicative and institutional framework for effective social security provisioning in South Africa that realises the rights of access to social security and to justice in the South African social security system. This is achieved by exploring the concept of access to justice, and its application in the social security adjudication system. The current social security adjudication system is evaluated against the concept of access to justice applicable in international and regional law instruments, comparable South African (non-social security) systems and comparative international jurisdictions. Principles and standards on the establishment of a social security adjudication system are distilled; and a reformed system for South Africa is proposed. / Mercantile Law / LL.D.

Medical negligence is a growing concern within South Africa.1 The medical environment has great potential for conflict, because even the best trained physicians can commit errors that result in medical disabilities and sometimes in death.2 The conflicts that follow from these errors are mostly fuelled by emotions and they can become very expensive and time-consuming to settle using the litigation process.3 There is a growing recognition that alternative dispute resolution (ADR) systems in healthcare may alleviate some of the financial and psychological burdens on doctors and patients involved in medical negligence disputes. Mediation is a method of ADR that is flexible and it permits the parties to the dispute to have control over the resolution. A typical medical negligence dispute is driven by intensely emotional factors on the part of injured patients. Victims are not merely seeking financial compensation but they are also looking to understand the circumstances that brought on the event at hand. They want closure. A huge issue with regard to medical negligence litigation is the manner in which the claims are resolved. Litigation provides injured patients and caregivers with a traditional platform for addressing medical negligence claims. However, due to many reasons, this system seems not to be adequate for dealing with disputes arising from alleged medical negligence. Mediation offers a promising solution to the problems surrounding redress of medical negligence disputes. / Jurisprudence / LL. M.

The thesis analyses selected aspects of domain-name law, mainly from the perspective of trade-mark law. It discusses the evolution of the domain-name system and how it operates as background to a more detailed discussion of the theoretical classification of domain names. The thesis then examines the interplay between trade marks and domain names, and the resolution of domain-name disputes resulting from the inherent tension between these two systems. The main principles of domain-name dispute resolution are identified by way of an analysis of the panel decisions handed down in terms of the international Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the South African domain name dispute resolution regulations. This analysis always addresses, too, the extent to which national trade-mark law principles (with reference to the laws of South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America) apply, and the extent to which this is appropriate. / Private Law / LL.D.