Thesis (LLM. (Labour Law)) -- University of Limpopo, 2013 / The coming into power of the democratic government played an important role in transforming South African labour law system. After the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA) was implemented on 11 November 1996, the old Labour Relations Act of 1956 was repealed. The law on retrenchment forms an integral part of law of dismissals. The South African labour market has in the past years been characterized by restructuring and consequently retrenchment of employees. In most cases, employer’s decisions to retrench were challenged by the employees and unions in courts. Section 189 of the LRA stipulates procedures to be followed by an employer when contemplating dismissal of one or more employees for reasons based on operational requirements. The employer does not only have to follow the procedures set out in section 189 to render dismissals for operational reasons fair, but there must also be a valid reason to dismiss. The courts have always not been willing to second-guess the employer’s decision to retrench provided that the decision is made in good faith.

Work plays a dominant role in modern society. It is through work that the economic well being of any society is sustained. Workers who perform various tasks contribute to the well being of society as well as to their betterment as individuals. Thus paid employment has assumed a prominent role in modern society. It is an incentive on individuals to contribute to socio-economic welfare, while their needs and aspirations as individuals are also satisfied. But for an orderly society to exist, there has to be a subjection of some members of society by others, a division between those who have the social mandate (express or tacit) to exercise power for and on behalf of others. Thus work relations comprise those who exercise managerial power(employers) and those subject to managerial power (employees). In broader political relations, the task of social management is performed by the state. However those exercising managerial functions do not have unfettered discretion. Power should be exercised within acceptable social limits and be used to achieve realistic social goals. Thus it has been felt that the laws should always ensure that the incumbents of governmental power do not exceed the scope of their power or abuse it. Hence the process of judicial review. This gives the courts the power to review the decisions of administrative authorities in order to protect individual citizens who might be adversely affected by bad administrative decisions. This analogy has been applied in employment relations in order to protect individual employees against arbitrary dismissal by employers. It has been held that an employee cannot be dismissed without a valid reason and in compliance with a fair procedure. The question asked here is whether this is sufficient to ensure substantive employment protection. Is judicial review really effective in employment relations? It is observed that judicial review in labour law has many limitations as compared to the administrative law context. First, it comes face to face with the problem of the public/private law distinction, which holds the employment relationship to be fundamentally a private relationship between the employer and employee. This complicates the application of public law remedies in supposedly private relations, where the parties are assumed to have freedom of contract. The second problem involves the debate as to whether the state should impose many restrictions on the modern corporation or there should be minimal state intervention to allow the corporation to function in accordance with the labour market demands and economic necessity. It is concluded that the law of unfair dismissal has consequently been put in a dilemma. While the need has been perceived to curb the arbitrary use of managerial power by employers, substantive employment protection can hardly be guaranteed. The problem seems to be that of striking the balance between the interests of employees, employers and society at large. / Thesis (LL.M.)-University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 1995.

Abstract available in pdf file.

This in-depth study looked at a major manufacturing company during a year when management projected contract losses and massive lay-offs and terminations. The company's hourly employee culture indicated that the major automotive customers of the company were influential driving forces and would rescue the company from the dire management predictions. The principal major research question was to determine the accuracy of predictions based upon the company's hourly workers' culture versus management's predictions and actions based upon external sources.Another investigation area was the company management's actions to manifest their avowed "our employees are our most valuable resource and asset" belief statement. Similarly, would the Professional and Technician Equal Employment Opportunity job groups have the smallest percent of reduction, since the company's primary strength was purported to lie in its engineering and technical employees?Interviews, data collection and analysis, and monthly task force investigations and communications revealed the company culture was definitely more accurate than the numerous predictions made by management. As the "culture" predicted, the loss of the contracts did not occur. The company concluded the year with increases in total employment. Temporary lay-offs did occur during the year and management took numerous actions to help both retained employees and those being terminated or laid-off. Such actions included outplacement services, stress reduction programs, job placement and resume writing, and instituting communication networks and procedures and a Dispute Resolution Procedure. The company did show that the employees were valuable and important assets.The reduction numbers and percents for the Professionals (engineers) and Technicians were exactly opposite of what management typically avowed. The largest category reduced was the Technicians and the second-largest category was the Professionals.The company continued to be quite viable and the future outlook became optimistic, which coincides with the company culture that the major automotive customers will always be there needing the company's products.The company management took several steps to prevent their predictions from occurring, while hourly employees, using only history which is not a very dependable source for industry today, happened to be correct in this study.The primary conclusion was that the culture of the company's hourly workers was more accurate in predicting the future than management's predictions based on supposed knowledgeable external sources. It was recommended that internal cultural based predictions and externally based information be blended together for the most accurate predictions. This will provide all managements everywhere a better information base for making decisions, particularly strategic planning decisions. / Center for Lifelong Education

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

Labour law in South Africa has evolved over the past century at an ever increasing pace. The establishment of a democratic government in 1995 has been the trigger for a large number of labour law statutes being promulgated, particularly with reference to the laws governing the employment relationship and dismissal. From very humble and employer biased dispute resolution application under the common law of contract, labour law in this country has evolved through the various acts culminating in a labour law system which is highly regulated and codified. Dismissal for medical incapacity in this treatise is reviewed with regard to the applicable statutes and the various codes of good practice as the law has evolved and developed from the period covered by the common law through that covered by the 1995 LRA up to and including the current period. Particular attention is paid to both substantive and procedural requirements as well as the remedies applicable under the different legal regimes and the pertinent tribunals and courts. Regard is also given to the duration and causes of incapacity and the effect this may have on the applicable remedy applied by these tribunals. It will become apparant that the medically incapacitated employee occupied a relatively weak and vulnerable position under the common law as opposed to the current position under the 1995 LRA. The influence of the remedies applied by the tribunals under the 1956 LRA are clearly evident in the current regulations and codes under the 1995 LRA which contain specific statutory provisions for employees not to be unfairly dismissed. Distinctions are drawn between permissible and impermissible dismissals, with medical incapacity falling under the former. v Furthermore, a distinction is drawn statutorily between permanent and temporary illhealth/ injury incapacity with detailed guidelines for substantive and procedural fairness requirements to be met by employers. The powers of the specialist tribunals (CCMA, Bargaining Councils and Labour Courts) are regulated by statutory provisions and deal with appropriate remedies (reinstatement and/or compensation) a wardable in appropriate circumstances. Certain specific areas nonetheless still remain problematic for these tribunals and hence questions that require clear direction from the drafters of our law are: 1. How to distinguish misconduct in alcohol and drug abuse cases? 2. What degree of intermittent absenteeism is required before dismissal would be warranted? In certain other areas the tribunals have been fairly consistent and prescriptive in their approach and remedies awarded. Included here would be permanent incapacity, HIV cases and misconduct. It will emerge, however, that under the 1995 LRA the position of employees and the protections afforded them have been greatly increased.

The history of constructive dismissals in South Africa imitated from the English law in 1986, when an employee successfully challenged the employer on this particular concept after an incident relating a forced resignation. From the literature it is clear that constructive dismissal, as we know it today, originated from our English counterparts. Being a relatively new concept, the South African labour laws caught on at a rapid pace. The leading case on which the South African authors leaned towards was the English case of Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough). In South Africa constructive dismissals were given statutory force in unfair dismissal law and is defined as the coerced or forced termination of a contract of employment resultant in from the conduct of the employer. There are many forms in which constructive dismissals would postulate that could justify an employee to lay claim to constructive dismissal. Examples thereof are the amendment of the contract of employment, rude language and sexual harassment. It is eminent that certain elements should be present before an employee would have reasonable prospects of succeeding with such a claim. Constructive dismissal comes into the equation when an employer behaves in such a manner that eventually and ultimately leads to the employee, being the receiving party, in the employment relationship, to terminate the employment contract. This termination must be the direct result of the conduct of the employer that irreparably frustrated the relationship and made it impossible for the employee to remain in the service of the employer in question. It appears that the courts have taken a firm stance on coerced or forced resignation, in its various forms tantamount to breach of contact, that any sufficiently unreasonable conduct by an employer may justify that the employee to terminate services and lay claim to the fact that he had been constructively dismissed. It needs to be mentioned that the fact that the mere fact that the employer acted in an unreasonable manner would not suffice and it is up to the employee to prove how the conduct of the employer justified the employee to leave and claim that the employer’s conduct resulted in a material or fundamental beach of the employment contract. In dealing with the contingency of the concept of constructive dismissals it has been expressly provided for in numerous systems of labour law. As is seen herein, a constructive dismissal consists in the termination of the employment contract by reason of the employee’s rather than the employer’s own immediate act. The act of the employee is precipitated by earlier conduct on the part of the employer, which conduct may or may not be justified. Various authors and academics endeavoured to defined constructive dismissal and all had the same or at least some of the elements present, to justify constructive dismissal. The most glaring element being the termination of employment as a result of the any conduct that is tantamount to a breach going to the root of the relationship by the employer, that frustrated the relationship between the employer and the employee and rendered it irreparable. The employee resigns or repudiates the employment contract as a result of the employer normally not leaving the employee any other option but to resign. This can also be termed as coerced or forced resignations and are commonly better known as “constructive dismissal”. The employee is deemed to have been dismissed, even though it is the employee who terminated the employment contract. The most important element to mention is the employee terminated the employment contract, ie resigned yet this is regarded as a dismissal, it is however for the employee to first lay a claim at the proper authority and the employee must prove his / her allegation before it can be a constructive dismissal. As will become clear, that the onus of proof is on the employee to show that the termination of employment resulted from the conduct of the employer. Equally true as in all cases of constructive dismissal, including cases of sexual harassment, being a ground for constructive dismissal, the employee must prove that to remain in service would have been unbearable and intolerable. Sexual harassment is one of the most difficult forms of constructive dismissals, in many cases there are no witnesses and the employee either “suffers in silence or opt to place her dignity at stake to prove her case. It seems as though the test is to determine if the employer’s conduct evinced a deliberate and oppressive intention to have the employment terminated and left the employee with only one option that of resignation to protect her interests. Employees have a right to seek statutory relief and needs to be protected. If a coerced or forced resignation had taken place irrespective whether the employee resigned or not. It is against this back drop that constructive dismissals was given legality and are now recognized as one of the four forms of dismissals in terms of the Act.

In the employment context employers may view certain conduct/behaviour committed by an employee or a group of employees to be repugnant and unacceptable resulting in the disciplinary action that may lead to a dismissal sanction taken against such employee or employees. Even though the employer has a right to discipline the employees for a contravention of a rule or a policy and even dismiss the employee/s involved, such a disciplinary action and dismissal must be based on a certain procedure where the principle of fairness must be adhered to. The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“the Act”) and Schedule 8 of the Code of Good Practice deals with the aspects of dismissals related to conduct and capacity, however, each case is unique, it has to be approached on its own merits. Schedule 8(3) states that, “formal procedures in disciplinary measures do not have to be invoked every time a rule is broken or a standard is not met”. It is therefore necessary that there should be a disciplinary code which guides the workers and the employers, it must be clear and be understood by all the parties. The disciplinary code of conduct serves as the foundation of good discipline because everybody knows the consequences of his/her contravention of those guidelines enumerated in the Code of Conduct. The Code of Good Practice under Schedule 8(3), states that “while employees should be protected from arbitrary action, employers are entitled to satisfactory conduct and work performance from their employees”, so a very good relationship between the two parties is most important if there is to be stability and industrial peace in the workplace.

The purpose of this treatise is to discuss the implementation of section 17 of The Employment of Educators’ Act1 with a view to examining its shortcomings in fulfilling the requirements of fairness. Section 17 makes dismissal for transgressing any of the misconduct cases listed therein compulsory. This is so because of the use of the term “must” in its opening sentence. The Constitutional Court in Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Mines2 emphasizes the consideration of the totality of circumstances before the dismissal sanction is imposed by an employer. These include but not limited to the importance of the rule that has been breached to the employer; the basis of the employee’s challenge to the dismissal; the harm caused by the employee’s conduct; the effect of dismissal on the employee and the length of service. The treatise argues that in its current form section 17 of The Employment of Educators’ Act does not cater for the consideration of these circumstances set by the Constitutional Court. The study will also discuss the applicable dismissal legislation in education. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa guarantees everyone a right to fair labour practices.3 This right is further qualified by the Labour Relations Act4 in section 185. The Labour Relations Act also has in it Schedule 8 which is a Code of Good Practice: Dismissal. The Code endorses the concept of corrective or progressive discipline5 and the need to give due consideration to certain circumstances before dismissing an employee.6 The consideration of the circumstances listed by the Constitutional Court in Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Mines7 and the provisions of items 3(2) and 3(6) cannot be said to be well catered for under section 17 of the Employment of Educators’ Act because of the use of the term “must”. For the principle of fair labour practices to be fully accommodated under section 17 of the Employment of Educators’ Act a need to amend it is necessary. This treatise will introduce amendments that will provide for pre-dismissal arbitration as a possible approach to ensuring full compliance for fairness in dismissals that are as a result of transgressing any of the misconduct cases listed in section 17. Other amendments suggested are aimed at realigning section 17 to other child specific legislation like the Children’s Amendment Act8 and the Sexual Offences and Related Matters Amendment Act.

LL.M. / Please refer to full text to view abstract