The Labour Relations Act contains a definition of a strike which reads as follows: “’strike’ means 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 employer and employee, and every reference to ‘work’ in this definition includes overtime work, whether it is voluntary or compulsory.” The Labour Relations Act offers strikers special protection against dismissal if they conform with the Act and its provisions. Hence the distinction between those strikes and protest action in compliance with the Act, namely ‘protected’ strikes and protest action, and those strikes and protest action in violation of the Act, namely, ‘unprotected’ strikes and protest action. Participation in an unprotected strike is one form of misbehaviour. The Labour Relations Act expressly prohibits the dismissal of employees engaged in a lawful strike. Employees engaged in strike action contrary to the provisions of the Labour Relations Act may be dismissed since their strike action is deemed to be a form of misconduct. The dismissal of striking employees must be both substantially and procedurally fair.

The Department of Education, as part of the public sector, employs educators in terms of the Employment of Educators Act (EEA),1 whereas the rest of the public servants are employed in terms of the Public Service Act (PSA). If an educator is absent for more than 14 consecutive days without the permission of the employer, the educator is deemed to be discharged according to section 14(1)(a). With regard to the rest of the public sector, a similar provision is put in place, where section 17(5)(a) provides for the discharge of a public officer who is absent from his / her duties without the permission of the Head of Department for a calendar month (31 days). Sometimes long absent periods are caused by personal circumstances of the employee which are unforeseen. If the employee reports for duty after the dismissal, section 14(2) of the EEA provides that, the employee may be reinstated by the employer on good cause shown, after a post-dismissal hearing. If an employee in the public sector is discharged based on these deeming provisions, the employment is terminated by the operation of the law and there is no dismissal. This means that the employer is not responsible for the termination, meaning than there exists no option to review the dismissal. The supreme law of the Republic of South Africa (RSA) is the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (the Constitution).5 The question at hand is whether the deeming provision of section 14 of the EEA6 is constitutional. The Labour Relations Act (LRA) goes further by stipulating that every person has the right not to be unfairly dismissed, and not to be subjected to unfair labour practice.7 Section 23 of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right to fair labour practices. Furthermore, section 33 of the Constitution provides for fair administrative action. The question is whether these provisions, dealing with the dismissal of educators, limit the employee’s constitutional right to a fair labour practice.

Common law does recognise the concept of dismissal based on operational requirements. It recognises dismissals that are based on breach of expressed or implied terms of contract of employment. The concept of operational requirements has its roots in the Labour Relations Act 28 of 1956. This Act recognised termination of employment of a number of employees due to ability, capacity, productivity, conduct and operational requirements and needs of undertaking industry trade or occupation of the employer as legitimate. Under the 1956 LRA, employers were allowed to dismiss employees if employees refused to accept the proposed change to conditions of employment. The dismissal is called lock-out dismissal. This kind of dismissal entitled employers to dismiss employees on condition that the dismissal was temporary and the workers would be re-employed when they agree to the demands of the employer. After the contract of employment was terminated between the employer and employees, the employer was allowed to implement the changes using scab labour. The 1995 Labour Relations Act introduced section 187(1)(c) that was intended to re-enforce the abolishing of the lock-out dismissal. This section strictly forbids the dismissal of employees in order to compel them to accept demands of the employer in matters of mutual interest. Such dismissals are regarded as automatically unfair. In terms of section 64(4) of the 1995 LRA employers are not permitted to unilaterally effect changes to employees’ terms and conditions of employment. They are required to seek and obtain consent of the affected employees. If employees refuse to accept the proposed changes, the employer can use lock-out as defence. Firstly, the employer can initiate lock-out until employees accede to its demand. Secondly, the employer can lock-out employees in response to the notice of strike or strike of the employees. The employer can use scab labour during this lock-out period. Unlike the lock-out dismissal, lock-out under the 1995 LRA does not include termination of contract of employment. iv In contrast, employers are allowed to dismiss employees who refuse to agree to change to their terms and conditions of employment on the ground of operational requirements provided a fair procedure is followed. This reason for dismissal is not viewed by the courts as a dismissal to induce employees to accept the demand of the employer. The question that this study seeks to examine is the relationship between automatic unfair dismissal in terms of section 187(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act and dismissal for operational requirements. A dispute between the employer and employees regarding change to terms and conditions of employment is a mutual interest dispute; and it therefore falls under collective bargaining. The same dispute can easily fall to rights dispute, because the reason for the proposed change to the production system and demand to the pursuit of improved efficiency and better achievement of profit objective related to operational requirement. There is obvious overlap between operational requirements and wage work bargaining. In Schoeman v Samsung Electronics, the court held that the employer is entitled to run its business in a prosperous way and this may entail affecting changes to terms and conditions of employment when the market forces demand so. In Mwasa v Independent Newspapers, the court held that change to terms and conditions of service of an employee can be proposed as a way to avoid retrenchment; dismissal of employees for refusing to accept the change is not covered by section 187(1)(c). In Fry’s Metals v Numsa, the court has rejected the notion that there is tension between section 187(1)(c) and section 188(1)(a)(ii). The court held that section 186(1) refers to dismissal or termination of workforce with the intention to end the employment contract and replacing the workforce with employees that are prepared to accept terms and conditions of employment that suit the employer’s operational requirements. The court argued further that the meaning of dismissal should be a v starting point when one wants to dispute the two sections. On the other hand, section 187(1)(c) was effected with a certain purpose, which is to prohibit the employer from dismissing employees in order to compel them to accept its demand in dispute of mutual interest. The court held that the dismissal in this case was final. The employer dismissed its employees because it did not need them anymore. This dismissal is in accordance with section 186(1). The court rejected that operational requirements is confirmed to saving business from bankruptcy. The court argued that the principle includes measures calculated to increase efficiency and profitability. The employer can dismiss and make more profit.

Thesis (LLM.) -- University of Limpopo, 2022 / The study will analyse the legal position of the right to strike and the consequences of participating in an unlawful strike. The study will provide a brief practical implication of employees dismissed for participation in an unlawful and/or unprotected strike and the employer’s right to reemploy any employee dismissed for a misconduct relating to unlawful and/or unprotected strike. The study will further make a brief comparison with the labour law position relating to strikes in the United Kingdom (“UK”). At the end provide recommendations on how the law on participation on unlawful and/or unprotected strikes and reemployed of employees dismissed on misconduct relating to participation in an unprotected strike can be developed and improved.

The effective management of a strike is generally a challenging phenomenon which impacts on employers, employees and the general public. The main purpose of this study was to analyse the legal implications of employees’ participation in an unprotected strike. The study also explored requirements for a strike to be protected in compliance with the prescribed legislation. From the literary review, cases and legislation, it became clear that compliance plays a key role when a consideration is taken by employees to take part in a strike during dispute resolution. In analysing the legal consequences for participating in an unprotected strike, a finding was made that employers in the end have an upper hand in that when all due processes and procedures are followed, they are empowered to dismiss employees. Legislation and international standards form the cornerstone upon which dispute resolution mechanisms and the rights of employers and employees are derived from. / Mercantile Law / LL.M. (Labour law)

Text in Afrikaans / Summaries in English and Afrikaans / Die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika en die Wet op Arbeidsverhoudinge verleen aan werknemers die reg om te staak. Die reg is egter nie onbeperk nie. Op grond van die voldoening aan wetlike vereistes, word stakings as beskermd of onbeskermd geklassifiseer. Beskermde stakers kan ontslaan word weens wangedrag tydens die staking of op grond van die bedryfsvereistes van die werkgewer. Die werkgewer se bedryfsvereistes sal ontslag regverdig indien sy /haar vlak van toleransie bereik is. Dit sal die geval wees indien die werkgewer se besigheid met ondergang gedreig word of onherroeplike skade gaan ly, sou die staking voortduur. Aile relevante faktore moet egter in ag geneem word. Daar is nie tans 'n vasgestelde toets in die verband nie en daar word ook aan die hand gedoen dat billikheid, met inagneming van al die relevante faktore en omstandighede, die belangrikste oorweging moet wees. 'n Vasgestelde toets vir die bepaling van die werkgewer se vlak van toleransie, word afgekeur. / The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and the Labour Relations Act give employees the right to strike. This right is, however, not unlimited. By reason of the satisfaction of statutory requirements, strikes are classified as protected or unprotected. Protected strikers may be dismissed for misconduct during the strike or by reason of the operational requirements of the employer. The employer's operational requirements will justify dismissal when his/her level of tolerance is reached. This will be the case when the employer's business is on the brink of extinction or about to suffer irreparable harm. All the relevant facts must however be taken into account. Currently there is no definite test in this regard and it is proposed that fairness, taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances, be the overriding consideration. A specific test for the determination of the employer's level of tolerance must be rejected. / Economics and Management Sciences / 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.

Thesis (LLM)--University of Stellenbosch, 2001. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Section 197 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 ensures the transfer of a contract of employment from an old employer to a new employer on the transfer of a business as a gomg concern. Although section 197 is mostly based on European and British statutes and regulations, one should not rely on foreign provisions when interpreting section 197 without careful consideration. It is only when we understand the inherent limitations of applying these provisions, that they can be of any help to formulate definitions for the terms "transfer", "business" and "going concern". The two most important effects that section 197 has, is that it ensures the transfer of the contract of employment and that it protects the terms and conditions of employment when such a transfer takes place. Unfortunately, this section does not regulate dismissal on the transfer of a business. Section 197 also does not deal satisfactorily with the transfer of contracts of employment on the transfer of an insolvent business. As a result of the above-mentioned and other shortcomings of the current section 197, it was decided to amend the Act. The Labour Relations Amendment Bill 2000 relies heavily on precedents from foreign law, but unfortunately it does not adequately address all the current problems. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Artikel 197 van die Wet op Arbeidsverhoudinge 66 van 1995 verseker die oordrag van 'n dienskontrak van 'n ou werkgewer na 'n nuwe werkgewer by die oordrag van 'n besigheid as 'n lopende onderneming. Alhoewel artikel 197 gebaseer is op Europese en Britse wetgewing en regulasies, moet die leser versigtig wees om sulke bepalings sonder skroom aan te wend by die interpretrasie van artikel 197. Wanneer ons die inherente beperkings daarvan begryp, mag die bepalings van hulp wees om definisies te vorm van die begrippe "oordrag", "besigheid" en "lopende onderneming". Artikel 197 het hoofsaaklik twee uitwerkings: dit fasiliteer die oordrag van die dienskontrak en verseker dat die terme en voorwaardes van indiensneming onveranderd bly. Die artikel reguleer nie ontslag by die oordrag van 'n besigheid nie. Artikel 197 reguleer ook nie genoegsaam die oordrag van dienskontrakte waar 'n insolvente besigheid oorgedra word nie. As gevolg van bogenoemde en ander tekortkominge is besluit om die Wet te wysig. Die Wysigingswetsontwerp op Arbeidverhoudinge 2000 steun op buitelandse presedente, maar spreek ongelukkig ook nie al die huidige probleme suksesvol aan nie.

Submitted by Filipe dos Santos (fsantos@pucsp.br) on 2018-10-22T12:32:43Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Silvia Isabelle Ribeiro Teixeira do Vale.pdf: 1379797 bytes, checksum: 3f582bb333035dabd730c3ea7c44065b (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-10-22T12:32:43Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Silvia Isabelle Ribeiro Teixeira do Vale.pdf: 1379797 bytes, checksum: 3f582bb333035dabd730c3ea7c44065b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-09-10 / The main objective of this study is to analyze the principle of due process in its greatest potentiality, investigating how and to what extent this ancestral clause has effectiveness in the employment relationship, limiting the disciplinary labor power, by imposing a procedure for fair dismissals motive, in honor of the principles of the adversary and the ample defense. The Federal Constitution of 1988 is expressed by prohibiting arbitrary dismissal, considering it an unlawful act. However, in addition to the aforementioned protection, the principle of due process requires the employer to motivate the act of resignation, be it individual or collective, hence the new rule brought by Article 477-A of the Consolidation of Labor Laws is unconstitutional / O presente trabalho visa primordialmente analisar o princípio do devido processo legal em sua maior potencialidade, averiguando como e em que medida essa cláusula ancestral possui eficácia na relação de emprego, limitando o poder disciplinar laboral, ao impor uma procedimentalização para as despedidas por justo motivo, em homenagem aos princípios do contraditório e à ampla defesa. A Constituição Federal de 1988 é expressa ao proibir a despedida arbitrária, considerando-a ato antijurídico. Todavia, para além da proteção aludida, o princípio do devido processo legal impõe o dever de o empregador motivar o ato demissional, seja ele individual ou coletivo, razão pela qual a nova regra trazida pelo artigo 477-A da Consolidação das Leis do Trabalho é inconstitucional

Thesis (LLM)--University of Stellenbosch, 2001. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Section 197 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 ensures the transfer of a contract of employment from an old employer to a new employer on the transfer of a business as a gomg concern. Although section 197 is mostly based on European and British statutes and regulations, one should not rely on foreign provisions when interpreting section 197 without careful consideration. It is only when we understand the inherent limitations of applying these provisions, that they can be of any help to formulate definitions for the terms "transfer", "business" and "going concern". The two most important effects that section 197 has, is that it ensures the transfer of the contract of employment and that it protects the terms and conditions of employment when such a transfer takes place. Unfortunately, this section does not regulate dismissal on the transfer of a business. Section 197 also does not deal satisfactorily with the transfer of contracts of employment on the transfer of an insolvent business. As a result of the above-mentioned and other shortcomings of the current section 197, it was decided to amend the Act. The Labour Relations Amendment Bill 2000 relies heavily on precedents from foreign law, but unfortunately it does not adequately address all the current problems. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Artikel 197 van die Wet op Arbeidsverhoudinge 66 van 1995 verseker die oordrag van 'n dienskontrak van 'n ou werkgewer na 'n nuwe werkgewer by die oordrag van 'n besigheid as 'n lopende onderneming. Alhoewel artikel 197 gebaseer is op Europese en Britse wetgewing en regulasies, moet die leser versigtig wees om sulke bepalings sonder skroom aan te wend by die interpretrasie van artikel 197. Wanneer ons die inherente beperkings daarvan begryp, mag die bepalings van hulp wees om definisies te vorm van die begrippe "oordrag", "besigheid" en "lopende onderneming". Artikel 197 het hoofsaaklik twee uitwerkings: dit fasiliteer die oordrag van die dienskontrak en verseker dat die terme en voorwaardes van indiensneming onveranderd bly. Die artikel reguleer nie ontslag by die oordrag van 'n besigheid nie. Artikel 197 reguleer ook nie genoegsaam die oordrag van dienskontrakte waar 'n insolvente besigheid oorgedra word nie. As gevolg van bogenoemde en ander tekortkominge is besluit om die Wet te wysig. Die Wysigingswetsontwerp op Arbeidverhoudinge 2000 steun op buitelandse presedente, maar spreek ongelukkig ook nie al die huidige probleme suksesvol aan nie.