The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 brought a number of changes in the labour relations environment from its inception on 11 November 1996. The Act codified Industrial Court decisions that were already established under the strike-law jurisprudence from the Labour Relations Act 28 of 1956. These general changes to the law also impact on the strike-law regime. The purpose of this paper is to give an overview of the contributions made by the Labour Courts1 in developing strike law from the inception of the Act. The Labour Courts have made a number of decisions that have helped in clarifying the provisions of the Act. One should hasten to say that this has never been a smooth process by the courts. It will further be shown in this paper that some of the court decisions were not well accepted in the light of other considerations, such as the Constitution and the previous Industrial Court decisions. On some occasions the Constitutional Court had to intervene in order to clarify the intention of the legislature. For the purpose of effectively dealing with this topic, I shall briefly give the historical context of strike law in the form of common-law position, and the strike-law position before the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. I shall then endeavour to identify the legislative provision of the Act when it comes to strike-law provisions, at the same time identifying the important court decisions that were made.

This dissertation is a journey through the legislative changes and case law in order to analyse and evaluate the changing nature of South African jurisprudence in respect of the notions of equality, discrimination and affirmative action and the manner in which these issues are proved and dealt with in our courts. It focuses firstly on the emergence of the post-Wiehahn labour laws and the developing jurisprudence concerning discrimination in South Africa towards the end of a long period of isolation from the international world. It witnesses the growing cognizance which was taken of international guidelines and their slow and gradual incorporation into our jurisprudence before the institution of the new democratic government, in the days when the country was still firmly in the grip of a regime which prided itself on its discriminatory laws. It also deals in some depth with the new laws enacted after the first democratic government was installed, especially in so far as the Constitution was concerned. The first clutch of cases dealing with discrimination which were delivered by the Constitutional Court and their effects on decisions of the labour courts thereafter, are dealt with in great detail, indicating how important those judgments were and still are ten years later. A special chapter is devoted to the Harksen case, still a leading authority on how to deal with allegations of unfair discrimination. Having traversed several of the judgments of the labour courts after Harksen, several observations are made in the conclusion of the study which, it is hoped, summarize the major areas of concern in respect of the task of testing claims of unfair discrimination arising in our Courts.

This treatise describes the difficulty of changing conditions of service following transfers in terms of Section 197 of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996, provides that ambulance services are a Provincial Legislative competence. The City of Cape Town had for many years provided ambulance services on an agency basis to the Department of Health of the Provincial Administration of the Western Cape. The impact of the constitutional provision is that those employers and employees who are performing ambulance services are not entitled anymore to perform such function. The Department of Health must take control over the ambulance services and the employees of the City of Cape Town could be transferred. The challenges facing both employers (old and new) and the trade unions to secure a transfer of the employees from the City of Cape Town to the Department of Health in terms of section 197 of the Labour Relations Act will be highlighted. It is within the context of ensuring protection of jobs whilst simultaneously effect a transfer of contracts of employment that the Labour Relations Act expressly gives various options to the parties involves in a transfer. Of the options include: • A transfer in terms of section 197(2) of the LRA where the service could be transferred from the old employer to the new employer as a going concern. This could happen without the consent of the affected employees or trade unions and collective agreements must be taken over as well, or • The new employer complies with its obligations if the transfer takes place on terms and conditions that are on the whole not less favourable to the employees what they have received by the old employer. In terms of this provision the overall package of conditions of service that was offered should not be less in comparison with that of the old employer. • The parties also have the option to negotiate a transfer agreement that could regulate the conditions of service. The focus is on the description of the conditions of service of both employers and the difficulty to persuade the trade unions to accept the Department’s conditions of service. Part of the difficulty is that the Department must obtain its mandate from the Department of the Public Service and Administration, who is also responsible for the determining of the conditions of service in the Public Service. One of the challenges is that the Department of Health cannot accommodate collective agreements of entities outside the Public Service. The City of Cape Town’s conditions of service is in the form of a collective agreement and the Labour Relations Act is very specific with the various options. These options will be discussed an analised. In conclusion recommendations are made in regard to effect a transfer of conditions of employment in terms of the Labour Relations Act to enable the Department of Health to meet its constitutional obligation.

Since South Africa was declared a democratic country, the number of refugees fleeing to South Africa has increased. While it is understandable that refugees would flee to a country with a Constitution that protects the rights of everyone within its territory, this influx of refugees and migrants also puts a strain on the South African economy. One of the main problems associated with refugees and migrants in this country is their illegal status. Failure to obtain legal status in the country can be attributed to their own negligence to attend to the Refugee Reception Office, upon their arrival in the country. On the other hand, the South African government also fails foreigners in that the service provided at the Refugee Reception Offices is not up to the standard promised in the legislation. A further problem associated with refugees and migrants in the country is that they are competing with South Africans for jobs that are already scarce in the country. A foreigners need to earn a living is the driving force behind entering the employment market, and often illegally. Where refugees and migrants do not have the required work permits, their employment is prohibited in terms of the Immigration Act 13 of 2002 and they are thus illegal workers. Until recently, South Africa has followed the same policy as other international countries. Illegal workers did not have access to the protection provided by our labour legislation, by virtue of the illegality of their employment contracts. This position was changed by the Discovery Health case where the courts focused more on the existence of an employment relationship as oppose to an employment contract.

South Africa’s Labour Laws should undergo drastic changes in 2014 when new amendments take effect. The bills amend the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA), Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (BCEA) and the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (EEA). These amendments originate from the increasing “casualisation” of work prevalent in the South African Labour market and aim to address the phenomenon of labour broking, the continuous renewal of fixed-term contracts and unfair discrimination regarding wages amongst others. The legislature effected additional amendments to these Acts to align them with new developments, to improve the functioning of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) and to fulfil South Africa’s obligation as a member of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). 1 In addition, the amendments attempt to clarify the wording of the Labour Relations Act (LRA) to elucidate numerous significant judicial interpretations of various provisions of the current Act as well as to close what some believe to be loopholes in current legislation. There are differing views on the possible effects the amendments could have on the country; some believe that it will damage business while others believe it will affect job creation. 3 According to Bosch, the amendments allow employers flexibility without depriving employees of rights properly due to them. 4 The researcher emphasises topical issues such as the need for temporary employment services, entitlement to organisational rights and the abuse of fixed-term contracts and further discusses, to a lesser extent and focusing on discrimination, the Basic Conditions of Employment Act5 (BCEA) and the Employment Equity Act6 (EEA).

The purpose of having labour laws in South Africa is to regulate employment contracts and the relationship between the employer and the employee. Once a legally binding contract comes into being the Labour Relations Act of 1995 automatically applies alongside the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and various other labour legislations. Common law rules play a vital role in the formation of an employment contract. For an ordinary contract to have legal effect, four basic requirements need to be met. Briefly, parties to the contract must have reached consensus, parties’ performance of their obligations must be possible, the conclusion and objectives of the contract must be lawful and that both parties to the contract must have the necessary capacity to conclude the contract. Once these requirements have been met one is said to have concluded a valid contract. Nevertheless for the purposes of this study, we focus specifically on the employment contract. Aside from the general common law requirements for a valid contract, for an employment contract to be recognised and protected by labour legislations, it is important to distinguish an employee from an independent contractor since only the former enjoys legal remedies afforded by labour law. Common law contractual rights and duties automatically apply once an employment relationship is established in addition to the rights and duties specified in the contract itself. Common law rules regarding morality plays a major role in our modern day societies, as shall be discussed the workforce has not been left untouched by this important principle. Morality greatly influences a society’s view concerning acceptable and unacceptable behaviour or practices. It goes without saying that a contract should not be contrary to the moral views of the society in which the parties find themselves in. A contract can be complying with all the statutory requirements for a valid employment contract; however it may at the same time be tainted with illegality as the object of performance is considered immoral in the society such as an employment contract to perform prostitution. Conversely, another scenario may involve a party to an employment contract who is a child below the age of 15 years old; the contract is invalid as it contravenes section 43 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act. Despite clear statutory prohibitions this practice may be perfectly acceptable in the eyes and minds of the society. The purpose of this study is to evaluate prohibited and unlawful contracts of employments, how the law (both common law and statutory law) treats such contracts in the sense that; whether they are protected or not and to what extent these laws have been developed to influence modern attitudes concerning such contracts. One stark example is illustrated through case law where the court had to determine the validity of an employment contract concluded between an employer and an illegal immigrant.

The workplace has evolved dramatically in the past decades. Technology has improved, innovative ways of utilising nuclear power have been developed, new chemicals have been introduced to the market and the adverse effects of other chemicals on both human health and safety and the environment have been discovered. This has influenced the nature of the workplace itself. While employees enjoy a common law right to a safe working environment and health and safety, state intervention currently provides restricted claims to an employee who has sustained injuries or contracted occupational diseases. This thesis explores the effect of section 35 of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993 which deprives an employee of its common law right to institute civil action against an employer for an injury sustained or disease contracted during the course and scope of employment. Furthermore, this thesis also explores the marriage between the Occupational Health and Safety Act 89 of 1993 and the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993 as well as the position of ‘employee’ and ‘employer’ insofar as the scope and application of these two acts are concerned with specific reference to the position of labour broker employees. The use of indemnity clauses and its validity in South Africa will also be explored and discussed. This thesis also dedicates a chapter to the leading case authority of Jooste v Score Supermarket Trading (Pty) Ltd and its effect insofar as the enforcement and application of section 35 of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993 is concerned. It is impossible to mention all the changes in the workplace that have occurred in the recent years, and this discussion therefore focuses on the current position of employees who have been deprived of their common law right to institute delictual action for damages resulting from an injury sustained while on duty as well as the impact of the current restrictive claims available to them. Alterations to existing approaches are also proposed to resurrect the common law right of employees to institute action against their employers. / Abstract

The meaning of the term “benefits” in the context of unfair labour practice jurisprudence, having previously been unsettled for more than a decade, has now been settled by the Labour Appeal Court in the Apollo.1 Prior to Apollo,2 our courts have struggled to adopt a stance to maintain the distinction between disputes of rights and disputes of interest as separate compartments. The prevalent view at that stage was that, in order for an employee to lodge a dispute at the CCMA or Bargaining Council the employee would have to show that he or she had a right to the benefit that arises by virtue of contract, statute or collective agreement, failing which the CCMA or a Bargaining Council would not have the jurisdiction to determine the dispute, in which case it may constitute a dispute of interest and the employee will have to embark on an industrial action to secure a benefit. Apollo3 endorsed a previous decision of the Labour Court,4 i.e. by placing “benefits” into the following two categories: (1) Where the dispute is about a demand by employees concerning their benefits, it can be settled by way of industrial action. (2) Where the dispute concerns the fairness of the employer's conduct, it must be settled by way of adjudication or arbitration. As a result of the above categorisation, the CCMA or Bargaining Council may adjudicate a dispute relating to benefits where there is a pre-existing benefit and the employer refuses to comply with its obligation towards the employer in that regard. It may also adjudicate disputes relating to the provision of a car allowance (i.e. where the employer retains the discretion to grant or withhold the allowance) and disputes relating to the provision of bonuses (i.e. where the employer retains the discretion to grant or withhold the bonus). In this treatise, I set out the history and development of the legislation in relation to the concept of “benefits” (in the context of unfair labour practice) so as to understand how our Labour Appeal Court has now come to settle the issues above.

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa guarantees the right of education to all citizens of the country. The Eastern Cape Department of Education went a step further by adopting a vision to ensure quality public education that will result in the positive transformation of all schools. Education is therefore a very important part of the life of any society and needs to be protected at all costs. It is therefore important that all obstacles in the way of providing quality public education be removed. It is no secret that the Eastern Cape Department of Education has had a number of battles with some of its social partners. These battles have negatively impacted on the education system. This Department also received the largest slice of the taxpayers’ money. It is time to take serious steps to halt the waste of time and resources. It is against this background that this study wanted to consider policies, procedures and practices that generated tension between the management and labour in the Eastern Cape Department of Education. It is my belief that if tension between the different social partners can be reduced, we would have gone a long way in achieving the vision of the Department of Education. The research methodology that was followed for this study comprised the following: • Literature was reviewed that dealt with labour relations and human resources. • A questionnaire was designed to collect information from the different participants. • The information in the questionnaire was incorporated into the main study where findings were identified and recommendations were formulated.

South Africa emerges from a history where, workers, and in particular African workers, were excluded from enjoying labour rights and particularly the right to strike, without consequences. Participation in industrial action was treated as a delict or even a criminal offence by employers and the state. A history where participation in a strike was treated as breach of contract and therefore the employer could dismiss striking employees at will. The first democratic elections in South Africa introduced a Constitutional democracy. The Constitution introduced the Bill of Rights in terms whereof the right of every employee to form and join trade unions and to participate in its activities and programmes and to strike was entrenched. Section 27 of the Constitution provides that national legislation shall be enacted to give effect to its purpose and to regulate labour matters, hence the Labour Relations Act of 1995. This study will show that the Labour Relations Act of 1995 marked a major change in South Africa’s statutory industrial relations system. Following the transition to the new political dispensation and a democratic system, the LRA encapsulated the new government’s aims to reconstruct and democratise the economy and society. It ushered in a new order where employers and workers had the opportunity to move away from the adversarialism that had characterised their relations in the past. It promoted more orderly collective bargaining and greater co-operation at workplace and industry levels, and provided an expeditious dispute resolution system. This study also takes a closer view of the provisions of international instruments and institutions such the International Labour Organisation and it, further, does a comparative analysis of the provisions of strike law in other jurisdictions like the United States of America, Canada and the United Kingdom. This study shows further that, while South Africa has democratised the workplace and done away with legislation, policies and practices that discriminated against the majority of the workers and deprived them of the rights that were otherwise enjoyed by their white counterparts to form and join unions and to participate in the activities of the unions, including participating in a strike and while it has made provisions for a protected strike under the LRA and while South Africa has tried to level the playing field and brought some equilibrium in the power between workers and employers, the very same right to participate in a strike and to compel employers to accede to their demands is taken away by the provision in the LRA that allows employers to lock them out and replace them with temporary workers.