In terms of section 193 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, there are basically three remedies for unfair dismissal and unfair labour practice, namely reinstatement, re-employment and compensation. In disputes of unfair labour practice an arbitrator may determine a dispute on terms that the arbitrator deems reasonable, including the abovementioned three remedies. For example, in an unfair labour practice dispute relating to promotion or appointment, an arbitrator may order that the process of appointment be started afresh, if is found that the process was flawed. The right to fair labour practice is a right that is enjoyed by everyone and it is a right upon which every employee enjoys not to be unfairly dismissed is entrenched in section 23 of the Bill of Rights. The rights of every employee contained in the Labour Relations Act give content and effect to the right to fair labour practice contained in section 23 of the Bill of Rights. Every trade union, employer’s organisation and employer has a right to engage in collective bargaining, which includes but not limited to the formulation of disciplinary policies in the workplace, which should be observed by every employee. Our constitution mandates the Legislature to enact legislation that regulates collective bargaining. One of the purpose of our Labour Relations Act is to promote collective bargaining and the effective resolution of labour disputes. The remedies for unfair dismissal and unfair labour practice therefore give content and effect to the purpose of the Act, which is to promote effective resolution of labour disputes. The Legislature has given a legislative and policy framework, in terms of which the labour disputes may be resolved. In order to restrict the powers of the arbitrators and courts, section 193 of the Act provides that in ordering the reinstatement and re-employment of dismissed employee, they must exercise a discretion to order reinstatement re-employment, not earlier than the date of dismissal. The remedy of compensation is an alternative remedy, which must be ordered if the circumstances set out in section 193(2)(a) to (d) are applicable. Some arbitrators have made a mistake of treating this remedy as part of the primary remedies. However, our courts have clarified the intention of the Legislature in crafting the remedies for unfair dismissal.

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. 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: How to distinguish misconduct in alcohol and drug abuse cases? 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 small business sector has been identified as a target by government to reduce South Africa’s unemployment problem. There is existing research that most companies, including small business, avoid taking on new employees to avoid, perceived, stringent labour legislation. This research investigates whether small businesses adopt alternative employment strategies to labour as a means to avoiding labour legislation. The questionnaire was distributed to over 9000 small businesses in the metal and engineering manufacturing sectors. Of the 214 responses only 194 could be used. The results of the research point to a prevailing perception by those surveyed that labour legislation is stringent in South Africa and that small businesses, in their efforts to avoid compliance, chose to employ in the temporary and labour broker employment market. Mechanisation is also an option used by small business to avoid legislation. Legislation is, however, not always the only driver when businesses decide to mechanise. / Dissertation (MBA)--University of Pretoria, 2014. / pagibs2015 / Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS) / Unrestricted

Thesis (LLM. (Labour Law)) -- University of Limpopo, 2022 / This study examines the relationship between automatic unfair dismissal under Section 187(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act,1 and dismissal for operational reasons under Section 189 of the LRA. Dismissal is automatically unfair if the reason for dismissal is a refusal by employees to accept a demand in respect of any matter of mutual interest between them and their employer and this is according to Section 187(1)(c) of the LRA Employees have the right to refuse the new terms and conditions of employment, and they cannot be dismissed for doing so. However, if the employer’s business is in decline and thus causes financially loss to the employer, the employer may change the operation of the employment in order to sustain the employment. The employer must initiate consultation process (collective bargaining) with the employees' representatives in order to reach an agreement that protects both the employer's and the employees' interests. To avoid retrenchment, the employer and the employees’ representatives through collective bargaining have to agree to new conditions of the employment and should the parties agree on the new conditions of the employment this will automatically set aside the terms and conditions of the employment contract. In K Ngubane v NTE Limited, 2 “the court observed and noted that the requirement is that the old contract of employment must be terminated with the purpose of inducing acceptance of a demand or proposal, or the employer can simultaneously terminate the contract of employment and give the employee his/her final offer”. Before resorting to dismissal, the employer must exhaust all the alternatives available to him and this could include, inter alia, change of job descriptions since this will not have adverse financial consequences for the workers. If the employees refuse to accept the demands of the employer that were aimed to avoid retrenchments for operational reasons, the employer may dismiss them in accordance with the provisions of section

Legislation, arbitral and judicial decisions, and public opinion provide evidence of increasing concern for protecting employees from unfair dismissal in both union and nonunion firms. Management's right to discharge is being questioned today more than at any other time in the history of labor-management relations. Thus, organizations must stay abreast of the developments that affect their right to discharge employees. This study investigates arbitration awards and judicial decisions in discharge cases to provide answers to these questions. Are companies aware of the types of misconduct for which discharge is considered appropriate? Are companies aware of what constitutes the burden of proof requirements in discharge cases? Does management know and follow the proper procedures in handling discharge cases? The purposes of the study are 1. To determine the extent to which discharges were overturned or modified because the company did not meet the burden of proving a reasonable cause for discharge; 2. To determine the extent to which discharges were overturned or modified because the company did not follow proper dismissal procedures; 3. To develop a model set of guidelines to assist companies in the proper handling of discharge cases. These guidelines present criteria for meeting the just cause and procedural requirements in discharge cases.

This paper focused on how competing interests of employers and employees are accomodated in the South African Labour Relations arena. An analysis of the legislative framework was undertaken to establish how the legislation provides for changes in workplace practices as well as the protection that it affords employees against unwanted or unilateral changes. The main focus of the research was on how the South African Courts have interpreted the legislation and how it has applied the law in cases involving the changing of terms and conditions of employment, that has come before it.

Thesis (LLM. (Labour Law)) -- University of Limpopo, 2013 / Reinstatement is one of the remedies for unfair dismissals. Dismissed employees have a recourse to approach the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration1 or labour courts to seek reinstatement. The arbitrator or the courts have a discretion to order reinstatement based on the facts of the case, sometimes retrospectively. Retrospectivity is a discretionary matter in the hands of the courts and therefore the courts of law have been inundated with cases where the employers wanted to limit the retrospectivity of the application of reinstatement as a remedy for unfair dismissals. On the other hand, the dismissed employees would want the court to extend the application. In other circumstances the court would award compensation instead of retrospective reinstatement like where reinstating the employee is just practically impossible or the employee himself does not want to be reinstated. The Labour Relations Act2 has limited the power or discretion of the employers to dismiss employees at will. Section 185 of the LRA provides that there should be fair and valid reason for dismissals. The employer would have to prove the reason for dismissal for it to be valid. On the other hand, the case law also has established that where there is unfair dismissal, the arbitrator or the court must give the primary remedy in favour of the employees which is to reinstate them in their work. Such reinstatement would have the effect as if the employee was never dismissed in the first place.

Thesis (LLM. (Labour Law)) -- University of Limpopo, 2012 / Since the advent of constitutional democracy, there has been a steady growth in the volume of employment and labour protection legislation.1 More than a decade following the enactment of the new labour code has witnessed an avalanche of decisions of courts and arbitration awards of labour adjudicatory tribunals.2 Many of them involve unfair dismissals generally, unfair suspensions,3 residual unfair labour practices,4 disputes over promotion hinging on affirmative action, employment equity and unfair discrimination,5 the recurrent problem of jurisdiction,6 and review of arbitration proceedings.7 While wage and disputes8 on the one hand, and strikes9 on the other will always feature as perennial events in the labour-management calendar, truly important interface over several years has been dismissal of employees for automatically unfair reasons. 1 See eg, Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995; Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997; Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998; Educators Employment Act 76 of 1988; Promotion of Administrative Justice 3 of 2000; Protected Disclosures Act 26 of 2000; Public Service Act (Proc 103 of 1994) Skills Development Act 97 of 1998; Skills Development Levies Act 9 of 1999; Unemployment Insurance Act 30 of 1966; The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000. 2 See generally; Zondo, R ‘The new Labour Courts and labour law: The first seven months of the new LRA’ (1998) 19 ILJ 686; Wallis, M.J.D. ‘The new era – How decisive is the break from the past (1999) 20 ILJ 902. 3 Ngwenya v Premier of KwaZulu-Natal [2001] 8 BLLR 924 (LC); MEC for Tourism Affairs: Free State v Nondumo & others (2005) 26 ILJ 1337 (LC); SAPU & another v Minister of Safety & Security & another (2005) 26 ILJ 524 (LC). 4Department of Finance v CCMA & others (2003) 24 ILJ 1969 (LAC). 5 See eg: Minister of Finance & another v Van Heerden (2005) 26 ILJ 1593 (CC). For a detailed discussion: Zondo, R ‘The new Labour Courts and labour law: The first seven months of the new LRA’ (1998) 19 ILJ 686; Wallis, M.J.D. ‘The new era – How decisive is the break from the past (1999) 20 ILJ 902. 6 See eg: Old Mutual Life Assurance Co SA Ltd v Gumbi (2007) 28 ILJ 1499 (SCA). See also Pretorius SC, P ‘A dual system of dismissal law: Comment on Boxer Superstores Mthatha & another v Mbenya (2007) 28 ILJ 2209 (SCA) (2007) 28 ILJ 2172; 7 See generally Carephone (Pty) Ltd v Marcus NO & others1999 (3) SA 304 (LAC); Sidumo & another v Rustenburg Mines Ltd & others (2007) 28 ILJ 2405 (CC). 8 See generally, Du Toit, D ‘What is the future of collective bargaining (and Labour Law) in South Africa?’ (2007) 28 ILJ 1405; Landman, A ‘The duty to bargain – an old weapon pressed into service’ (2004) 25 ILJ 39. 9 Modise v Steve’s Spar Blackheath (2000) 21 ILJ 519 (LAC); PSA v Minister of Justice & Constitutional Development & others [2001] 11 BLLR 1250 (LC). See also Myburgh, JF ‘100 years of strike law’ (2004) 25 ILJ 962. 8 In pith and substance, the study concerned with dismissals that undermine the fundamental values that labour relations community in our country depends on to regulate its very existence. In the first part of the study, the constitutional and statutory framework will be briefly considered. An early appreciation of the constitutionalisation of the right to fair labour practices will provide a point of reference for evolving contemporary labour law corpus on automatically unfair dismissals. The second part takes a frontal examination of novel questions of constitutional vintage concerning automatically unfair dismissals. In turn, this raises questions of dismissals for exercising statutory employment rights. The other aspects are instances of employee victimisation resulting from lodging a grievance, protected disclosures, as well as trade union activities. Also arising are dismissals that can be ascribed to unfair discrimination. While the first part of this study concentrates on those situations where the employer has victimised and/or dismissed for exercising statutory rights, part three examines that question which has vexed the Labour Court, Labour Appeal, and to a lesser extent the Supreme Court of Appeal in recent times, the intersection between automatically unfair dismissals on the one hand, and corporate restructuring, on the other. In effect, the contentious issues naturally call for discussion: the uneasy relationship between corporate restructuring and collective bargaining, dismissal of protected strikers for operational reasons, dismissals in support of employer’s demands as well as dismissals of transferred employees consequent to transfer of undertaking. Before moving onto the heavyweight topic of automatically unfair dismissals, it is perhaps appropriate at this stage to reflect on the constitutional and statutory framework underpinning the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995.

Thesis (LLM. (Labour Law)) -- University of Limpopo, 2008

Thesis (LLM. (Labour Law)) -- University of Limpopo, 2012 / The overlap between misconduct and incapacity in case of intoxication and alcoholism remains a grey area. It is trite that an employee can be dismissed if under the influence of alcohol during working hours. On the other hand, the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal for conduct and incapacity in item (10) of schedule 8 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 singles out alcoholism as a form of incapacity that may require counselling and rehabilitation. There is a thin line between cases in which intoxication can be treated as misconduct, and those cases in which alcoholism should be treated as incapacity. The purpose of this study is to critically analyse dismissal on the grounds of alcoholism and intoxication at the workplace.