Thesis (doctoral)--Universität zu Köln.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Heidelberg.

Thesis (doctoral)--Friedrich-Alexander-Universität zu Erlangen.

Before the introduction of the concept of constructive dismissal in the LRA, the old industrial courts relied on the strides made in this field by the English and American courts. Constructive dismissal is the fourth type of dismissal and it is instituted by the employee through his/her resignation, unlike the other three types of dismissals which is instituted by the employer. Section 186(e) of the LRA defines constructive dismissal as the termination a contract of employment with or without notice by the employee because the employer made continued employment intolerable for the employee. With a fundamental breach in the contract of employment employees have a choice to either base their claims on constructive dismissal in the LRA or repudiation of the contract in common law, depending on the circumstances. Landmark judgments like Jooste v Transnet and Pretoria Society for the Care of the Retarded v Loots set the tone for constructive dismissal law in South Africa. It introduced the concept of intolerability as well as looking at the employer‟s conduct as a whole and judging it reasonable. The test for constructive dismissal throughout the evolution of case law in South Africa has not changed. Constructive Dismissal under the common law is also discussed in depth by looking at the landmark judgment of Murray v Minister of Defence. Sexual Harassment in the workplace is of a growing concern. If continued sexual harassment makes continued employment intolerable, the employee subjected to the harassment has the option of resigning and approaching the CCMA or bargaining councils, and claim that they have been constructively dismissed. Cases such as Payten v Premier Chemicals and Gerber v Algorax (Pty) Ltd really shows us how difficult it is to proof constructive dismissal as a result of sexual harassment because in most instances there won‟t be witnesses and it would be a case of he said, she said. These cases also show us that it can be proven based on a balance of probabilities. Grogan states that in dismissal proceedings, the onus is on the employees to prove that they were in fact dismissed and on the employer to show that the dismissal was fair. Section 192 of the LRA places another burden on the employee that requires him to not only prove the existence of a dismissal, but also that the conduct of the employer was intolerable. Unlike normal dismissal cases, commissioners generally award compensation as a remedy for constructive dismissal. A claim by an employee for reinstatement would be contradicting a claim that the employment relationship became intolerable and an award for reinstatement would be very inappropriate in a case of constructive dismissal. In short, unlike a normal dismissal, a constructive dismissal is a termination of the employment contract by the employee rather than the employer‟s own immediate act.

Thesis (doctoral)--Friedrich-Alexander-Universität zu Erlangen.

Inaug.-Diss.--Frankfurt am Main. / Vita. Bibliography: p. 7-9.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Breslau.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1956. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 233-252).

Under the 1956 Labour relations Act, parties who were dissatisfied with decisions of the then Industrial Court, could appeal to the old Labour Appeal Court, and then if still further unhappiness persists, to the former Appellate Division. Such appeals entailed placing before the court the complete record of the Industrial Court, and requesting it to decide if on the evidence, it would have come to the same conclusion. Sometimes the courts of appeal decide that they would, sometimes that they would not. When planning the new Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, the Cheadle Commission decided that this process was too slow, too technical, too cumbersome and too expansive. So it recommended that, at least in the case of the most common disputes, the issues should be decided quickly, informally and finally by arbitration. Unless the parties agree to private arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 42 of 1956, the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration (CCMA) would supply the arbitrators, who would exercise their powers, not under agreed terms of reference, but under the LRA itself. Like private arbitrators, those of the CCMA are also meant to dispose of matters with a minimum of legal formalities (see section 138(1) of the LRA). But the drafters of the LRA did not mean to insulate arbitration awards entirely from the watchful eye of the Labour Court. They therefore specifically provided for review of CCMA arbitrations awards in section 145, but they also gave general powers of review in section 158(1)(g) respectively of the LRA. As if the jurisdictional puzzle created by the LRA was not complex enough, the legislature added the Promotion of Justice Act 3 of 2000. It is an attempt to give expression to the constitutional right of fair labour practices and the constitutional standard of lawfulness and rationality. If section 145 limits the grounds on which commissioners’ actions can be reviewed, or if that section cannot be interpreted to reconcile it with the PAJA, it may well be that section 145 cannot pass constitutional muster - unless that section constitutes a limitation compliant with section 36 of the Constitution. That would be for the Constitutional court to decide.

Tesis (licenciatura en derecho)--Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record.