World-wide research has shown that educators are suffering physical as well as psychological symptoms because of their experiences in their school environment. A large body of legislation, including the Bill of Rights, general and education legislation protect the rights of educators to working conditions which are safe and healthy. It seems clear from the literature that protecting the security of the educator implies the inclusion of psychological security. One of the aims of this research was to establish to what extent legislation succeeds in protecting the psychological security of educators at school. The study showed that although a large body of legislation exists, a lacuna exists in the application of this legislation. Furthermore, the research showed that educators are not experiencing this protection in actuality, are suffering several stress symptoms and are generally not aware of the rights which should protect them. The findings revealed that learner discipline and work overload were experienced as the main causes of psychological insecurity for participating educators. During the research it was investigated whether the development of creative skills could enhance the ability of educators to cope with the psychological insecurities in their workplace. Further aims of the study were to design a theoretical creativity development model and to determine the characteristics of an effective programme to enhance workplace psychological security in education. The literature and findings revealed that creativity programmes which could inter alia enhance attitude and general health should include aspects such as problem solving processes, the development of positive attitudes and the enhancement of the psychological work environment. The study also includes the design of a creativity programme which can be applied in the participating and similar schools in order to develop creativity skills which may be able to assist educators to cope more effectively in their work environment. / Thesis (Ph.D. (Education))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2009.

Magister Legum - LLM / South Africa

Magister Legum - LLM / This study assesses the development ofvictims' rights in the legislative and policy framework in South Africa. It is argued that although victims' rights are recognised more has to be done to concretise these rights.

The pre-1996 anti-gay/lesbian laws have been repealed and today South Africa’s constitution recognizes and protects the rights of homosexual people. The adoption of a new constitution in 1996 included a Bill of rights prohibiting discrimination on sexual orientation and opened up the space for the recognition and protection of the rights of homosexual people. The Equality Clause, Section 9 in the Bill of Rights, prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation by the state and all other persons. The Civil Union Act, passed in November 2006, is the fruition of LGBTI peoples'lobbying for protection and recognition which was made possible by the new constitution. Although Parliament has passed more than 30 progressive laws that include the protection and recognition of LGBTI people, since 1994 there is still a great amount of stigmatization of the homosexual way of life. Not only is the homosexual couple made invisible in many instances, but the couple must also face prejudice from all sectors of society. The dominant hetero-normative narrative of relationships, has led to an “othering” of same-sex couples and families. Thus, despite equality in terms of the law, lesbian relationships are assumed to be inferior to heterosexual relationships because they are not conventional and are plagued by stereotypes and misconceptions. Unlike heterosexual women, lesbian women must contend with a society in which their lifestyle is not the norm. The impact of this oppressive cultural context on the individual and her intimate union is the subject of this study. Fifteen South African lesbians were interviewed in order to gain in-depth understanding of the potential stressors that intervene to shape their relationships, and their coping mechanisms, within the prevailing social and political milieu. The study outlines a variety of stressors as potential sources of conflict for lesbian couples thus contributing to building understanding of the dynamics of lesbian intimate unions. Additionally, in response to homophobic conceptions which are still dominant in society, the women reveal particular ways of representing themselves and their relationships. Different discourses are appropriated in an effort to present themselves in a more ‘favourable’ light. They valorise their relationships, adopt strategies to guard themselves and withstand stigmatisation. These actions however, also present certain stressors for their relationships. This exploratory study contributes to the growing body of literature on homosexuality, serving to counteract stereotypes and shed light on the dynamics specific to lesbian relationships. It highlights systemic, contextual, familial and intimate issues and the ways in which gay women contend with them. Copyright / Dissertation (MSocSci)--University of Pretoria, 2010. / Sociology / unrestricted

Magister Legum - LLM / In the history of labour relations, trade unions have played a major role in protecting the rights of employees and improving their working conditions. They have defended their members against exploitation by employers. They have promoted the establishment of labour legislation, which in some countries is quite comprehensive. They represent the interests of employees in the collective bargaining process. Albertyn describes trade unions as"institutions which advance democracy, co-operation, peaceful resolution of disputes and nonviolent negotiation (and which) are intrinsically worth preserving and protecting".' It is selfevident that a trade union needs strength to achieve these purposes. However, trade unions areweakened by the fact that it is not only union members who enjoy the benefits of their achievements, since non-members do the same and some employees thus try to avoid the burdens of trade union membership. It is therefore understandable that trade unions attempt to decrease the numbers of these so-called "free riders". Besides the pressure that can be brought to bear by fellow employees in the workplace, union security arrangements, such as the closed shop or the agency shop, represent another traditional method of strengthening trade unions. The free rider problem, however, is only one of many arguments used in the debate by those who support the establishment of closed shops.

The South African democratic transition in the 1990s represents one of the clearest cases of practical implementation of constitutional engineering. The process was aimed to the creation of the principle of national unity in the fundamental text first, hoping it would be mirrored consequently by a popular sentiment. Within this context, the Bill of Rights, included in the second chapter of the final text, affirmed itself as the most relevant document that emerged from the country's nation-building process. This thesis aims to compare the influences that the national and international components of the South African transitional legal culture had on the drafting of the Bill of Rights, through the investigation of their historical and political dynamics. The analysis highlights that the liberal component characterizes the majority of the text, while being, however, declined on the neo-liberal international doctrine, while the African customary law is recognized within the cultural rights but remains subjected to the requirement of conformity with the liberal provisions.

The focus of this discussion is whether there is still the need to enforce the restraint of trade agreements in their pre-Constitutional form. The dawn of the constitutional era has necessitated a re-examination of common law with a view to establishing whether the balance created by the latter (regarding this field) still exists. The Bill of Rights has obviously raised some doubts regarding the equilibrium desired between employer and employee interests. Section 22 of the Constitution is to the effect that everyone must be free to secure employment (as a fundamental right), whereas the common law restraint of trade agreements impose some bars to the operation of the said right. It is common course that the Constitution is more superior to common law, what remains a debateable issue is whether there are any reasonable limits that must be considered to justify the disregard of the Constitution. Serious arguments around the direct and indirect application of the Bill of Rights still persist and failure to resolve them would have the effect of excluding or weakening the application of the Bill to disputes arising in this field. In common law the enforcement of restraint agreements is sine qua non for the greater good of protecting the sanctity of contracts. Contractual obligations must be fulfilled unless it would be unreasonable to enforce same. The question of the onus to prove unreasonableness, which lies with the employee, turns to place an onerous burden on the employee. This coupled with the employee’s weaker bargaining power raises doubts as to whether the employee is in a better position to conclude a restraint of trade agreement. Common law does not consider or accommodate this concern in that its main object is the fulfilment of the agreement. It is believed that the Constitution has ushered in a new approach which focuses mainly on the fairness of the agreement itself. The enforcement of the agreement must pass the constitutional muster built in section 22 in order to ensure that there is equilibrium between the employer (the restrainor) and employee (the restrainee) interests. In the end this discussion explores whether it is justifiable to subject the Right to work (as provided by the Constitution) to the common law restraint which is opposed to the constitutional right. The circumstances under which the exclusion of section 22 is condonable are interrogated within the framework of conflicting case law. / LLM (Labour Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

The focus of this discussion is whether there is still the need to enforce the restraint of trade agreements in their pre-Constitutional form. The dawn of the constitutional era has necessitated a re-examination of common law with a view to establishing whether the balance created by the latter (regarding this field) still exists. The Bill of Rights has obviously raised some doubts regarding the equilibrium desired between employer and employee interests. Section 22 of the Constitution is to the effect that everyone must be free to secure employment (as a fundamental right), whereas the common law restraint of trade agreements impose some bars to the operation of the said right. It is common course that the Constitution is more superior to common law, what remains a debateable issue is whether there are any reasonable limits that must be considered to justify the disregard of the Constitution. Serious arguments around the direct and indirect application of the Bill of Rights still persist and failure to resolve them would have the effect of excluding or weakening the application of the Bill to disputes arising in this field. In common law the enforcement of restraint agreements is sine qua non for the greater good of protecting the sanctity of contracts. Contractual obligations must be fulfilled unless it would be unreasonable to enforce same. The question of the onus to prove unreasonableness, which lies with the employee, turns to place an onerous burden on the employee. This coupled with the employee’s weaker bargaining power raises doubts as to whether the employee is in a better position to conclude a restraint of trade agreement. Common law does not consider or accommodate this concern in that its main object is the fulfilment of the agreement. It is believed that the Constitution has ushered in a new approach which focuses mainly on the fairness of the agreement itself. The enforcement of the agreement must pass the constitutional muster built in section 22 in order to ensure that there is equilibrium between the employer (the restrainor) and employee (the restrainee) interests. In the end this discussion explores whether it is justifiable to subject the Right to work (as provided by the Constitution) to the common law restraint which is opposed to the constitutional right. The circumstances under which the exclusion of section 22 is condonable are interrogated within the framework of conflicting case law. / LLM (Labour Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

Master of Arts / Department of Communication Studies, Theatre, and Dance / Charles J. Griffin / This rhetorical history study attempts to refocus the narrow debate on the concept of the “Separation of Church and State.” Most scholars and popular organizations primarily focus their determination of the original intent of the Establishment Clause on the views of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Virginia. However, according to the United States Constitution it takes three-fourths of the states and two-thirds of Congress to ratify an amendment. As a result, most arguments on this topic center on an extremely small minority of evidence: one of fourteen states, and only one of eighty-one members of Congress to determine the Founders’ original intent. This study reverses this trend and consults evidence from all the states involved as well as the records of Congress. Since comparable documents are vital to understanding history, all the state constitutions, state bills of rights, and state proposed amendments to the Federal Constitution are consulted as evidence at the beginning of this study. Additionally, every reference of religion in the above documents are individually presented in order to alleviate concerns of potential evidence manipulation. Further, the debates in Congress and the multiple drafts of the Establishment Clause are evaluated in the process of determining the Founders’ original intent. Throughout the study, several useful tables have been constructed in order to facilitate the processing and evaluation of such a large base of evidence. The results of this study indicate a lack of evidence for the contemporary view that the Founders’ intent was to create a total separation between church and state. From the specific religious concerns voiced in the state ratification debates of the Constitution, what religious limits were written into state constitutions/bills of rights, and the amendments that states proposed concerning religion; it becomes evident that the Founders’ intention was only to prevent a particular Christian denomination from becoming the established "National American Church.”

This dissertation explores the perceptions of different groups of people (subsystems) who affect and are affected by the phenomenon of day labourers in Tshwane. Three "day labourer sites" were identified. Businesses, residents, police, metro-police and the municipality directly connected to these sites were interviewed. Their perceptions were analysed using the systemic frame of reference. The data was processed to describe perceptual relational patterns between the day labourers and the different subsystems. The following themes amongst these relational patterns were identified and described: employment, law and order, contact between subsystems, sharing the environment / community and resources / facilities. These themes were described in relation to the Bill of Rights (Chapter 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996). This research aims to highlight some of the voices of the groups affecting and affected by the phenomenon of day labourers. / Social Work / M.A. (Mental Health)