The right to legal representation at internal disciplinary hearings and arbitration proceedings at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), and bargaining councils, where the reason for dismissal relates to misconduct or incapacity is a topic that is raised continuously and often debated. Despite no amendments to labour legislation pertaining to the issue at hand there was however a recent Supreme Court of Appeal judgment. This judgment alters one’s view and clarifies the uncertainties that were created around Rule 25 of the CCMA rules, it also brings a different perspective to the matter, but it will however continue to ignite significant interest. There is no automatic right to legal representation at disciplinary hearings, at the CCMA, and at bargaining councils where disputes involve conduct or capacity and this is the very reason why it is a contentious matter for all parties to grapple with. The dismissal of an employee for misconduct may not be significant to the employer, but the employee’s job is his major asset, and losing his employment is a serious matter to contend with. Lawyers are said to make the process legalistic and expensive, and are blamed for causing delays in the proceedings due to their unavailability and the approach that they adopt. Allowing legal representation places individual employees and small businesses on the back foot because of the costs. Section 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996, provides everyone with the right to fair labour practices, and section 185 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 gives effect to this right and specifies, amongst others, that an employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed. At internal disciplinary hearings, the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 is silent as to what the employee’s rights are with regards to legal representation and the general rule is that legal representation is not permitted, unless the employer’s disciplinary code and procedure or the employee’s contract allows for it, but usually an employee may only be represented by a fellow employee or trade union representative, but not by a legal representative. In MEC: Department of Finance, Economic Affairs and Tourism, Northern Province v Mahumani, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that there exists no right in terms of the common law to legal representation in tribunals other than in courts of law. However, both the common law and PAJA concede that in certain situations it may be unfair to deny a party legal representation. Currently the position in South Africa is that an employee facing disciplinary proceedings can put forward a request for legal representation and the chairperson of the disciplinary hearing will have the discretion to allow or refuse the request. In Hamata v Chairperson, Peninsula Technikon Internal Disciplinary Committee, the Supreme Court of Appeal found that the South African law does not recognise an absolute right to legal representation in fora other than courts of law, and a constitutional right to legal representation only arises in respect of criminal matters.

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.

In Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Ltd ((2007) 12 BLLR 1097 (CC); (2007) 28 ILJ 2405 (CC); 2008 (2) SA 24 (CC)) the Constitutional Court made two findings of immense significance for dismissed employees: firstly, the court rejected the use of the so-called “reasonable employer” test in our law, a test which traditionally required arbitrators and courts evaluating the fairness of a dismissal for proven misconduct to treat the employer’s decision on sanction with a measure of deference; and secondly, on scrutiny of the more controversial issue before the court, to wit, the basis, if any, upon which arbitrators are obliged to make reasonable decisions, the court (in confirming that arbitrators are so obliged) held that the obligation to do so suffuses section 145 of the LRA, and that the extended review grounds legislated under PAJA do not apply. In the present article these judicial conclusions are critically analysed and evaluated, and a number of submissions are made, inter alia: it is submitted that the Constitutional Court’s rejection of the “reasonable employer” test was premised on a fundamental misinterpretation of the test; that while the court’s attempt to locate the reasonableness standard within the LRA was perhaps justifiable, the court failed to consider properly, or at all, the wording of section 145 and its history, with the consequence that the court failed to appreciate that section 145 of the LRA (save on an unduly strained interpretation) could not conceivably be construed to cater, in itself and without more, for the constitutional right to lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair administrative action; and further, that the labour landscape post-Sidumo is, to an extent, unquestionably one bathed in greater uncertainty. In conclusion, the author poses the question whether, on a review of Sidumo, the Constitutional Court should not be considered to have fallen short of fulfilling its constitutional obligations under the rule of law.

This treatise will focus on the review of labour arbitration awards provided for under the oversight of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), bargaining councils, statutory councils, accredited private agencies and approved private arbitration tribunals. The general grounds of review applicable to the arbitration awards of the different bodies are set out. Thereafter the case of Carephone (Pty) Limited v Marcus NO & others (1998) 19 ILJ 1452 (LAC) is analysed and the core principles pertaining to the justifiability test are clarified for the first time in the forum of the Labour Appeal Court. The judicial rationale for the relevance and applicability of the test to CCMA arbitration proceedings and criticisms of the test are examined. The justifiability tests are only applicable to review proceedings in CCMA matters and not available to private arbitration review matters. There are however three approaches which are being suggested for the application of the justifiability tests to private arbitration review. Firstly, it is suggested that the Arbitration Act could be interpreted to include the justifiability test under the statutory review grounds. Secondly, the arbitration agreements could be interpreted to include an implied term that the arbitrator is under a duty to give justifiable awards. Finally, it can be submitted that the law should be developed by reading into all arbitration agreements the ability to arbitrators to give justifiable awards. Since the judgment of Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Mines [2007] 12 BLLR 1097 (CC) various critical questions arose in relation to the interpretation and application for the purpose of dealing with subsequent review applications. Firstly, this research paper will seek to establish whether the courts in subsequent matters to the Sidumo judgment have interpreted reasonableness as a test or ground for review. Secondly the research paper will scrutinise case law whether the reviewing court is entitled to rely on and consider reasons other than those provided for by the commissioner in his award to determine inter alia, the reasonableness of his decision arrived at. The Constitutional Court in the Sidumo case rejected the so-called employer’s test, stating that ultimately the commissioner’s sense of fairness is what must prevail and not the employer’s view. Consequently an impartial determination whether or not a dismissal was fair is likely to promote labour peace amongst the labour force. The test arrived at by the Constitutional Court in the Sidumo case for determining whether a decision or arbitration award of a CCMA commissioner is reasonable, is a stringent test that will ensure that such awards are not easily interfered with. The question to be asked in determining whether there has been compliance with the standard is whether the decision of the commissioner is one which a reasonable decision maker could have reached. This approach will underpin the primary objectives of the Labour Relations Act which is the effective resolution of disputes. This finding will be apparent from important cases decided and discussed after the Sidumo landmark ruling.

LL.M. (Labour Law) / Commentators have warned that when men are given absolute control over their fellow men, there is the danger that what appeared pragmatically desirable may become morally intolerable. The current usage of polygraph testing by employers undoubtedly confirms this. In what follows, it will be argued that there is a serious shortcoming in South African law in that there is no legislative framework that governs and regulates the use of polygraph testing in the workplace. It is fairly likely that many South African employers will at some time be faced with dishonesty or criminal activities, such as fraud or theft, without accurately being able to identify where, how, and by whom such dishonesty was committed. If dishonesty and criminal activities are not properly managed, there may be adverse ramifications. As a result, many employers have opted to insert a clause in the employment offer and employment contract that relates to security obligations on the part of the employees or prospective employees. The clause would normally read as follows: “The company may request that you subject yourself to a polygraph test before commencement of employment or if an incident has occurred or and random testing during your period of employment with the Company. The employee hereby declares that he is aware of the company polygraph policy and accepts that this policy as a term and condition of his employment. The employee undertakes to comply with the said policy in all respects and acknowledges that he is bound thereby”. Magna Alloys & Research v Ellis introduced a significant change to the Courts’ approach to restraint of trade agreements by declining to follow earlier decisions based on an English precedent that an agreement in restraint of trade is prima facie invalid and unenforceable. The implication of this decision is that a right to choose a trade, occupation, or profession freely may

M.A. / The objective of this study is to examine the economic growth and job creation in relation to macro economic policies in South Africa since 1994 to date. Economic growth theories help to explain the economic growth problem as well as the possibility to create jobs. Since 1994, the government has introduced three economic policy programmes namely the RDP, GEAR and MTEF. However, the unemployment rate is increasing and the economic growth is still low. The aim of this study is to: demonstrate that economic growth is the driving force to job creation; analyse the human resource development; examine the international experience in relation to South Africa; critically analyse labour market development and macro economic policies; provide recommendations to employment creation.

Since 1994, South Africa has undergone socio-economic, political and demographic transformation. The Employment Equity Act (No 55) of 1998 aims to facilitate workplace transformation through the elimination of unfair discrimination and the implementation of affirmative action measures to enable equitable representation of employees in all occupational categories and levels in the workplace. This legislation was amended on 1 August 2014, and South Africa has watched with keen interest to see what the impact of the amendments to the Employment Equity Act would be on the world of work. For many it was to see whether job seekers and individuals from the designated groups experienced equity in access to the workplace and fair treatment in employment. For others, it was to see to what extent businesses would either benefit from its accountability and fairness to all employees or suffer from increased regulatory compliance to employment equity and affirmative action amendments. At the heart of the amendments was a need to make the South African Constitution real for South Africans in facilitating work inclusive environments in which people are enabled and motivated to contribute to the goals of the organisation. The state must respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights, one of these rights being equality. Affirmative action as a component of employment equity is inherently part of the process of increasing and managing diversity and identifying barriers to fair employment. Transformation does make business sense. No business will survive in the long-run, unless it reinvents itself and constantly adapts to the ever-changing demands of an increasingly competitive global environment in which it operates. An organisation’s ability to create a work culture in which diversity management is effectively managed is more likely to experience the positive effects thereof on its business. Organisations require a diverse workforce with the requisite multidisciplinary talents and knowledge to achieve its goals in an ever-changing environment. The evaluation of the extent of the progress and the narrative is to be drawn from the reported workplace demographics. This is made up of statistical analyses of the representation of individuals from designated groups at different occupational levels, as well as training and progression of designated employees by reporting employers. The ultimate test of transformation however, is in the extent to which employees would vouch for the inclusivity of the workplace environment and the total absence of unfair discrimination based on listed and arbitrary grounds. For the Commission to be able to comment on the experience of diversity management and inclusion as part of employment equity, a different approach needs to be taken. I am excited to share that the Commission’s strategic plan for the period 2016 to 2021 has prioritised the need to go beyond workforce demographic statistics and move towards a better understanding of the experience of fair treatment, diversity and “inclusion” Management. There is a significant shift in the way in which the Commission is approaching its work, in the interest of the country. It is not the aim of the Commission for Employment Equity to focus its attention on the punitive measures for non-compliance only, and accordingly the third Commission hosted the Employment Equity Awards, which recognise the good work done by organisations towards furthering the transformation agenda. The third Commission moreover developed a number of Codes of Good Practice to support the implementation of employment equity. A lot of ground was covered to enable the fourth Commission to focus on their mandate more effectively. We are grateful for their hard work and we wish them well as we look forward to realising our objectives. On a different note, the United Nations offices in New York were a hub of activity and rigorous debate during the March 2016 Summit on the Status of Women. One of the themes extensively interrogated at the summit was “Women Empowerment in the economic space”. Globally, not enough is happening to turn the economic status of women. The United Nations Sustainable Goal 5 is “Gender Equality”. A 50-50 target has been set for female representivity at all occupational levels globally. South Africa needs to work towards this goal as part of their contribution. The Summit echoed the words “Women leaders in the business world is everyone’s business”. It would do us proud in the future to be able to report significant progress in this area. Another topical issue was “Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value”. Three countries, namely Canada, Sweden and Iceland have committed themselves to pay parity across gender by 2022. South Africa on the other hand has already enacted this policy. We need to see significant change in this area. In line with the discussions during the summit, I would also like to encourage designated employers in South Africa to review policies in favour of transparency around remuneration. This will go a long way in creating an enabling environment for elimination of unfair discrimination in the workplace.

A dissertation submitted to the Department of Industrial Psychology, at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Masters of Arts, by Coursework and Research Report, 2000 / The current research report examines the relationship between personality variables and the perceptions of distributive, procedural and interpersonal justice. The study was performed with 70 employees from a company that supplies a financial service to the man on the street and companies with regard to all movable assets. The results indicated that certain aspects of the personality as defined by Jung do impact on an individual's Justice Perceptions. However, the sample size was too small to draw any conclusive relationships. The theoretical and practical implications of this are discussed along with limitations of the current research and directions for future research have been considered. / AC2017

Thesis (LLM. (Labour Laws)) -- University of Limpopo, 2022 / This study discusses a legal analysis of incompatibility as a ground for dismissal in the South African labour law. Incompatibility refers to the inability of an employee to maintain a harmonious relationship with his or her employer, or unable to adapt to the corporate culture of the workplace. The corporate culture is associated with the values, beliefs and behaviour to determine how employees interact with each other in the workplace. Therefore, in cases where the employer contemplates dismissing an employee on the ground of incompatibility, procedural fairness and substantive fairness should be implemented in order for the employer/s to make informed decision and ensure that the dismissal of such an employee is effected in accordance with the procedural and substantive fairness couched in the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 („the LRA‟). Section 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 provides broadly the right of everyone to fair labour practices. Consequently, the LRA was established to give effect to this constitutional provision. In terms of section 185 of the LRA everyone has the right not to be unfairly dismissed. Be that as it may, incompatibility is not clearly defined in section 188 of the LRA. In fact, there are no guidelines nor corrective measures implemented in the workplace to deal with incompatibility. Hence incompatibility is dealt with under dismissal based on incapacity. In most cases employers use their discretion in dismissing employees, thereby using improper procedure to end disharmony in the workplace. In summation, the central thesis of this study focuses on a legal analysis of incompatibility as a ground for dismissal in the South African labour law.

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)