No abstract available. / Thesis (LL.M.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 2012.

This paper focuses on the issue of constructive dismissal in terms of s186(e) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 which defines dismissal to include circumstances where an employee resigns because the employer has made continued employment intolerable. The purpose of this paper is to explore and describe case law on this issue and to consider what type of conduct has been regarded as intolerable by the courts in order to determine whether or not a case for constructive has been met. / Thesis (LL.M.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 2012.

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.

Retrenchment, as a form of dismissal, is regulated by section 189 and 189A of the Labour Relations Act 1995. In order for a retrenchment to be fair, it must comply with both the substantive and procedural requirements stipulated in the Act. After an employee has proved the dismissal, the onus rests on the employer to comply with these two requirements by providing proof thereof. One of the most important procedural requirements that must be complied with by the employer is that the employer cannot merely make a decision to retrench. This decision may only be made once the employer, when contemplating a retrenchment, followed the lengthy consultation process as required in section 189. Recent amendments to section 189 introduced a distinction between a small and big employer and further between a large-scale and small-scale dismissal. If the employee is of the opinion that the employer did not comply with either the procedural or substantive requirements or both, he/she may refer such a dispute for conciliation and thereafter for arbitration or adjudication, according to a dispute resolution process contained in the Act, during which process certain remedies are available to the dismissed employee. The Labour Relations Act 1995 also introduced important amendments which have the effect that employees are allowed to, in certain circumstances, to strike over collective retrenchment disputes.

The establishing of good cause subsequent to a deemed dismissal, as practiced currently only in the public sector, has been a controversial issue for the courts, labour law commentators and academics alike. It has been so because of a number of legislative deficiencies which caused the inconsistent application of the deeming provisions across the public service. Amongst others, the legislative deficiencies regarding establishing good cause are; the time-limit for establishing good cause, what happens when the employee returns, whether establishing of good cause should be entertained through written response or a hearing, the Termination of Employment Convention, 1982(No. 158) is silent on the deeming provisions, review of the employer’s discretion not to reinstate the absconding employee and the legal position regarding the traditional healer’s certificate. There will be an intensive investigation on the validity of the traditional healer’s certificate. Majority of South Africans rely on the THP for a number of illnesses. In some cases, they use the traditional healer’s certificate to establish good cause subsequent to a deemed dismissal. The traditional healer’s certificate is not yet valid given the pending legislative processes. This issue will be broadly explored in order to uncover the causes for the delay in finalising this crucial issue. Most of the absconding employees have a problem of alcoholism. There is a causal relationship between deemed dismissal and alcoholism. It is again the intention of this study to fully investigate this phenomenon and provide solutions for the employers faced with this challenge. Practical solutions will be proposed for each identified legislative deficiency and any related challenge to help employers to manage the deeming provisions in a very effective and efficient manner.

Section 23 of the Constitution provides that everyone has a right to fair labour practice. The constitutional right to fair labour practices includes the right not to be unfairly dismissed and is given effect to by section 185 of the LRA. The constitutional right not to be unfairly dismissed is given effect to by Chapter VIII of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (the LRA), which provides a remedy for an unfair dismissal. Schedule 8 of the LRA contains a “Code of Good Practice: Dismissal”, which the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (the CCMA) and the Labour Courts must take into account when determining the fairness of a dismissal. The LRA expressly recognises three grounds for termination of the employment contract namely; misconduct on the part of the employee, incapacity due to an employee’s poor work performance, ill health or injury and termination due an employer’s operational requirements. In terms of the LRA, a dismissal must be procedurally and substantively fair. The requirements for procedural and substantive fairness are contained in Schedule 8 of the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal. The provisions of section 185 of the LRA apply to all employers and employees in both the public and the private sectors, with the exception of members of the National Defence Force, the National Intelligence Agency, the South African Secret Service and the South African National Academy of Intelligence. Section 213 of the LRA defines an “employee” as any person, excluding an independent contractor, who works for another person or for the State and who receives, or is entitled to receive, any remuneration and any person who in any manner assists in carrying out or conducting the business of an employer. Section 200A of the LRA sets out the presumption as to who is an employee. This is a guideline to assist in determining who is an employee. The Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (the BCEA) sets minimum terms and conditions of employment including the notice of termination of employment. Under the common law an employment contract of employment can be terminated on either the expiration of the agreed period of employment or on completion of the specified task in cases of fixed-term contracts. Also, in terms of general contract principles an employment contract may be terminated by notice duly given by either party or by summary termination in the event of a material breach on the part of either party. The death of either party may terminate the employment contract. However, the death of an employer will not necessarily lead to the contract’s termination. An employment contract may also terminate by operation of law or effluxion of time namely retirement and coming into being of fixed-term contracts, by mutual agreement, employee resigning, due to insolvency of the employer and due to supervening impossibility of performance. In the circumstances indicated above, the termination of the contract of employment does not constitute dismissal. This means that the CCMA and the Labour Court do not have jurisdiction to determine should the employee allege that his or her dismissal was unfair. It has been argued that the instances where a termination of a contract of employment is terminated, but there is no dismissal should be scrutinised to avoid a situation where employees are deprived of protection afforded by the fundamental right not to be unfairly dismissed. There have been some instances where employment contracts contain clauses that provide for automatic termination of employment contracts. It has been held by the courts in various decisions that such clauses are against public policy and thus invalid. The Labour Court stated that a contractual device that renders the termination of a contract something other than a dismissal is exactly the exploitation the LRA prohibits. There are various court decisions providing guidelines of circumstances in which termination of employment may be regarded as not constituting dismissal. The main focus of the treatise is to discuss these instances and critically analyse the approach taken by forums like the CCMA, bargaining councils and the Labour Court in dealing with such instances.

Fundamental to any contract of employment is the obligation that rests on an employee not to be absent from work without justification. Under the common law, if an employee did that, the employer would be entitled to dismiss him or her on notice. The International Labour Organization Convention (ILO) 158 of 1982 provides that the employer must have a reason for a dismissal and sets out broad categories or reasons for dismissals . Section 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996(Act 108 of 1998) provides that “Everyone has the right to fair labour practices”. Section 33 of the Constitution provides that “Everyone has the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA) is designed to give effect to just administrative action. Section 1 and 3 of the Labour Relations Act,1995(Act 66 of 1995)(LRA) require compliance with Article 7 and 8 of the ILO Convention 158 of 1982, when the employment of a worker has been terminated by his or her employer. The LRA protects employees against unfair dismissal. In the Department of Education, Section 14(1)(a) of the Employment of Educators Act, 1998 provides for the discharge of an educator in the event that he or she absents himself or herself from work for a period exceeding 14 consecutive days without the permission of the employer. A similar provision, Section 17(5)(a)(i) of the Public Service Act, 1994 provides for the discharge of an officer other than an educator who absents himself or herself from his or her official duties without the permission of the Head of Department for a period exceeding one calendar month. Section 14(2) of the Employment of Educators Act, 1998 and 17(5)(b) of the Public Service Act,1994 afford an employee who has been deemed discharged to show good cause why he or she should be reinstated. Against this background, the critical legal question is the constitutionality of the deeming provisions. The study will examine the validity of these provisions in relation to the ILO Conventions, Constitution, LRA and PAJA.

Part II of the International Labour Organisation Convention 158 recognises operational requirements of an organisation as a ground for dismissal. Section 213 of the Labour Relations Act describes operational requirements reasons as requirements based on the economic, technological, structural or related needs of an employer. The employer‟s needs in case of operational requirement dismissal must be separated from the other reasons for dismissal, such as misconduct and incapacity. Operational requirements dismissals are governed by section 189 of the LRA. The LRA draws a distinction between small and large scale dismissals and regulates them separately. Section 189 control small scale dismissals, while section 189A pertains to large scale dismissals For substantive fairness of a dismissal for operational requirements, the employer must prove that the said reason is one based on operational requirements of the business. The employer must be able to prove that the reason for the dismissal falls within the statutory definition of operational requirements. Employers are not allowed to use retrenchment to dismiss employees who they believe to have performed unsatisfactorily. This means that employers are not entitled to retrench for ulterior reasons, than those of operational requirements.The Labour Court has held that an employer may not under any situation retrench an employee on a fixed-term contract if the termination takes place before the contract of the employee ends, unless the contract of employment makes provision for termination at an earlier date. Retrenchment in this situation will amount to a breach of contract. Another point of interest in dismissals for operational requirements is that the Labour Relations Act states that it is not unlawful to dismiss a striking employee for reasons based on the employer‟s operational requirements. In relation to the selection criteria to be used during these dismissals, the Labour Relations Act again states that if an agreement cannot be reached between the consulting parties, then the employer must use criteria that are fair and objective.

Section 23 of the Constitution provides that everyone has a right to fair labour practice. The constitutional right to fair labour practices includes the right not to be unfairly dismissed and is given effect to by section 185 of the LRA. The constitutional right not to be unfairly dismissed is given effect to by Chapter VIII of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (the LRA), which provides a remedy for an unfair dismissal. Schedule 8 of the LRA contains a “Code of Good Practice: Dismissal”, which the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (the CCMA) and the Labour Courts must take into account when determining the fairness of a dismissal. The LRA expressly recognises three grounds for termination of the employment contract namely; misconduct on the part of the employee, incapacity due to an employee’s poor work performance, ill health or injury and termination due an employer’s operational requirements. In terms of the LRA, a dismissal must be procedurally and substantively fair. The requirements for procedural and substantive fairness are contained in Schedule 8 of the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal. The provisions of section 185 of the LRA apply to all employers and employees in both the public and the private sectors, with the exception of members of the National Defence Force, the National Intelligence Agency, the South African Secret Service and the South African National Academy of Intelligence. Section 213 of the LRA defines an “employee” as any person, excluding an independent contractor, who works for another person or for the State and who receives, or is entitled to receive, any remuneration and any person who in any manner assists in carrying out or conducting the business of an employer. Section 200A of the LRA sets out the presumption as to who is an employee. This is a guideline to assist in determining who is an employee The Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (the BCEA) sets minimum terms and conditions of employment including the notice of termination of employment. Under the common law an employment contract of employment can be terminated on either the expiration of the agreed period of employment or on completion of the specified task in cases of fixed-term contracts. Also, in terms of general contract principles an employment contract may be terminated by notice duly given by either party or by summary termination in the event of a material breach on the part of either party. The death of either party may terminate the employment contract. However, the death of an employer will not necessarily lead to the contract’s termination. An employment contract may also terminate by operation of law or effluxion of time namely retirement and coming into being of fixed-term contracts, by mutual agreement, employee resigning, due to insolvency of the employer and due to supervening impossibility of performance. In the circumstances indicated above, the termination of the contract of employment does not constitute dismissal. This means that the CCMA and the Labour Court do not have jurisdiction to determine should the employee allege that his or her dismissal was unfair. It has been argued that the instances where a termination of a contract of employment is terminated, but there is no dismissal should be scrutinised to avoid a situation where employees are deprived of protection afforded by the fundamental right not to be unfairly dismissed. There have been some instances where employment contracts contain clauses that provide for automatic termination of employment contracts. It has been held by the courts in various decisions that such clauses are against public policy and thus invalid. The Labour Court stated that a contractual device that renders the termination of a contract something other than a dismissal is exactly the exploitation the LRA prohibits There are various court decisions providing guidelines of circumstances in which termination of employment may be regarded as not constituting dismissal. The main focus of the treatise is to discuss these instances and critically analyse the approach taken by forums like the CCMA, bargaining councils and the Labour Court in dealing with such instances

The focus of this dissertation is the impact that the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Act 45 of 1998 (AARTO) will have on the employment relationship between employers and employees. AARTO was promulgated in order to, amongst other things; assist with the streamlining of the traffic offence administration and the collection of payable fines for traffic infringements. Very little has been written with regard to the implications of AARTO on the employment relationship. The purpose of this dissertation is to unpack the mechanics of AARTO, and further to provide the writer’s view on its impact, problems and possible solutions, of the employment relationship within the South African Labour law framework. The writer will attempt to reconcile the Labour Relations Act and AARTO insofar as it impacts on the employment relationship, more especially the termination thereof. Writer will set out the provisions of AARTO and the sections pertaining to the allocation of demerit points on an individual driver’s licence. Unfortunately for the sake of completeness the writer will deal with the majority of sections in AARTO to provide a better understanding of the mechanisms envisaged by the Act to bring about the demerit points. It is writer’s view that dealing with the allocation of demerit points in vacuum will not provide the reader with a clear understanding of the impact of AARTO on labour relations. With regards to the actual implications that AARTO will have on the employment relationship writer has taken it upon himself to provide a categorization of employees in the broad sense and thereafter to discuss the impact of AARTO on the different categories of employees. More over the writer will examine the different categories of dismissal specifically misconduct, incapacity and operational requirements as well as the impact and applicability of AARTO thereon. vi The writer will also attempt to deal with peripheral issues that arise as a spinoff or AARTO insofar as employment relationships are concerned.