Thesis (LLM. (Labour Law)) -- University of Limpopo, 2012 / The purpose of the study is to address the effects of employment discrimination in the workplace focussing on designated groups, by comparing South Africa and Canada. Canada is one of the few countries that have addressed the employment barriers of target groups with one encompassing piece of legislation. In this study reference was made at the constitutional provisions towards unfair discrimination, labour law materials, employment and statutory provision so that the future researcher could see where employment discrimination in South African and Canada originate and what is the position. In order to address employment discrimination in the workplace case laws, courts judgments and other jurisprudence were used. The scope focused in this study is broad as a researcher did not look at other forms of employment discrimination. Employment discrimination in South Africa and Canada exists, this implies that the employment discrimination between two countries could be comparable. Policies and practices in order to identify employment barriers facing the disadvantaged groups were discussed. Therefore critical look focused on the employment systems, policies and practices at workplaces and also identify employment barriers facing designated groups in relation to recruitment, job classification, remuneration, employment benefits, conditions of services and promotion. South Africa and Canada emanated from a historical background of inequalities. Such inequalities lead to discrimination. South Africa and Canada’s discrimination affected blacks, Aboriginal people, women and people with disabilities. The grounds of discrimination were discussed in full for both countries.

Les réactions des candidats ont longtemps été étudiées sous l’angle des perceptions de justice, mais plusieurs auteurs appellent à s’intéresser aux perceptions de discrimination qui sont formées pendant un processus de recrutement, ainsi qu’aux conséquences spécifiques de ces discriminations. Afin de créer expérimentalement une situation où la discrimination est possible, nous avons étudié l’effet des questions inappropriées ciblant un stigmate sur les perceptions de justice et de discrimination des candidats, ainsi que sur l’image du recruteur et de l’organisation. Dans 4 études, nous avons pu observer que les questions inappropriées vont enfreindre plusieurs règles de justice procédurale et non uniquement la règle de bienséance des questions. Les questions inappropriées ont un effet négatif sur le jugement de compétence et de moralité du recruteur (étude 2) et sur les perceptions de risque de litiges mais pas sur les intentions des candidats de poursuivre le processus, de recommander l’entreprise ou d’y repostuler (étude 3). Nous avons identifié plusieurs facteurs individuels dont la conscience du stigmate et la légitimité perçue du critère de sélection qui sont liés aux perceptions de justice et de discrimination. De plus, les questions inappropriées peuvent être interprétées comme étant posées pour d’autres motifs que celui de discriminer. Ainsi, la tendance des individus à minimiser la discrimination, jusqu’à en légitimer les signes, peut expliquer la persistance des questions inappropriées. / Applicants’ reaction research has mostly focused on fairness perceptions, but several researchers encourage the study of perceived job discrimination during the selection process, as well as specific consequences of that discrimination. In order to create a situation in which discrimination was possible, we studied the effects of inappropriate job interview questions related to a stigma on fairness and discrimination perceptions as well their impact on the recruiters’ and the organization’s image. In four studies, we observed that inappropriate job interview questions violated several procedural justice rules, and not only the propriety of questions rule. Inappropriate questions negatively affected applicants’ judgements of the recruiter’s competence and morality (study 2), as well as their likelihood of litigating, but not their intention to persist in the hiring process, to reapply, or to recommend the organization (study 3). We identified several factors, such as stigma consciousness and perceived legitimacy of the selection criterion, that are related to discrimination and justice perceptions. Furthermore, inappropriate questions can be interpreted to be asked with intentions other than those of discrimination. Hence the tendency of individuals to minimize and even legitimize indications of discrimination can explain the persistence of inappropriate job interview questions.

Thesis (LLM. (Labour Law)) -- University of Limpopo, 2012 / Indirect discrimination is a concept which originated from the United States of America. The concept came about after the failure of anti- discrimination legislation to improve the position of Black Americans, particularly in the employment field. The legislature realized that there are structural practices and policies, in the employment field which affect certain racial groups negatively. These practices of discrimination were not clearly defined hence the meaning and interpretation of the concept was left to the administrative body, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the courts. The concept was imported into the South African jurisprudence after the inception of the government of National unity in 1994. The new government was committed to bring to an end all forms of discrimination which were in the past practiced against the Black community. Section 9(3) of the Constitution of South Africa Act 1996 (Act 108 of 1996) proscribed direct and indirect discrimination. These sections served as the basis for sections 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act 1998 (Act 55 of 1998) which proscribes “unfair direct and indirect discrimination” in any employment policy or practice. Its scope is wide and allows Plaintiffs to prove their claims in jurisdictions where it could have been very difficult for them to do so. While in the United States, statistical evidence is required to prove indirect discrimination, this is not the case in South Africa as seen in the landmark case of v Leonard Dingler Employee Representative Council v Leonard Dingler (PTY) LTD (1998) 19 ILJ 285 (LC). In this case when the Court gave its decision it simply relied on the facts of the case instead of complicated statistical evidence. Seemingly this will apply only in more obvious cases. In more complicated cases, Plaintiffs will still need to submit statistics to prove their claim.