This dissertation serves to investigate the existence of unfair labour practices (ULPs) in one institution of higher learning called X University, for reasons of confidentiality. The problem of this research is that there is existence of unfair labour practice in the X University. The above problem gave rise to different sub-problems and the research hypothesis. Literature review of this study surveyed different theories of labour relations. The theories reviewed include issues such as fair and unfair discrimination, the Labour Relations Act, discipline, Occupational Health and Safety and the role of the Labour Unions. Research methodology of this dissertation is quantitative. Qualitative methods used was not dominant. There was a use of percentages and frequencies for computing data. Data collection was in the form of questionnaires administered to 100 subjects. Preferred way of dealing with the subjects was through purposive sampling. The sample of this research is 100. It is through data that research subjects indicated that there is prevalence of ULPs in the X University. Sensitivity is exercised here, not to attribute the research findings to other organisations. The campus chosen has its own realities. This dissertation based its recommendations on the findings. The study mainly recommended that ULPs could be minimised by adopting policy relating to labour practices of the university. / M.Admin. (Industrial Relations) North-West University, Mafikeng Campus, 2005

Section 157 of the LRA provides for the nature and extent of the Labour Courts jurisdiction. This provision has been subjected to extensive interpretation by the Judiciary and the various interpretations of the courts have not been entirely consistent. Specific mention is made of the relevance and applicability of section 157(1) and (2) of the LRA regarding the overlap between administrative law and contractual law into labour law. Reference will be made to case law specifically dealing with cases concerning the jurisdiction of the civil courts and labour courts where cases concerning employment and labour matters were brought either in terms of the PAJA or on the basis of contract law. The question arose whether matters which appear to be quintessential labour matters but simultaneously also capable of being entertained on the basis of the PAJA or in terms of contract law are matters which, generally, in terms of section 157(1) of the LRA fall within the exclusive preserve of the Labour Court or, in terms of section 157(2) of the LRA, fall within the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and the Labour Court. The discussion which follows will also include reference to the current legal position pertaining to the prohibition of public sector employees from pressing their claims relating to employment or labour matters in the civil courts on the basis of the PAJA as decided in the Chirwa v Transnet Ltd (2008) 2 BLLR 97 (CC) and; the impact thereof on employees pressing claims pertaining to employment and labour matters in the civil courts on the basis of contract law. In addition the similarity of considerations which are common to both administrative law and contract law regarding the “overlap” of each into labour law will be considered and discussed. In the light of the discussion which follows agreement will be expressed with certain decisions of the High Court and the SCA where civil courts were held to retain jurisdiction to entertain common law contractual claims concerning labour and iv employment matters as opposed to restricting all employment and labour matters to the forums established under the LRA and to claims and remedies which are provided for by the LRA.

Thesis (LLM. (Labour Law)) -- University of Limpopo, 2013 / The coming into power of the democratic government played an important role in transforming South African labour law system. After the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA) was implemented on 11 November 1996, the old Labour Relations Act of 1956 was repealed. The law on retrenchment forms an integral part of law of dismissals. The South African labour market has in the past years been characterized by restructuring and consequently retrenchment of employees. In most cases, employer’s decisions to retrench were challenged by the employees and unions in courts. Section 189 of the LRA stipulates procedures to be followed by an employer when contemplating dismissal of one or more employees for reasons based on operational requirements. The employer does not only have to follow the procedures set out in section 189 to render dismissals for operational reasons fair, but there must also be a valid reason to dismiss. The courts have always not been willing to second-guess the employer’s decision to retrench provided that the decision is made in good faith.

Thesis (MTech (Education))--Cape Peninsula University of Technology, 2009 / The purpose of this study was to determine the post level I CS-educators' knowledge of their rights and duties in respect of unfair labour practice. The specific aim was to determine educators' knowledge of unfair labour practices in terms of the literature study. The method of research was based on interviews with post level I CS-educators in rural primary schools. The interviews consisted of structured questions of which the format as well as the order was determined beforehand. No coaching was given to respondents because it may have compromised their answers. The sample consists often educators (five males and five females) who teach in rural schools. In this way a fair opportunity was granted to both groups to be included in the sample. The researcher is of the opinion that this is a reasonable representation of the total sub population. From the empirical research it was evident that educators in rural schools had a vague knowledge of unfair labour practices. Shortcomings that were apparent from this study was addressed, recommendations were made, as well as possible future research on related topics was discussed.

This article deals with the South African law relating to promotions. As promotion disputes mostly arise as alleged unfair labour practices, a short discussion on how the concept of an unfair labour practice developed in South Africa is undertaken. In this regard the common law is studied in order to see whether it makes provision for protection of employees subjected to unfair labour practices relating to promotions. Through this study one soon realises that the common law is in fact inadequate to deal with unfair labour practices relating to promotions, and thus an enquiry into various legislative provisions are undertaken. The impact of the all-important Wiehahn Commission of Enquiry, established in 1979, is also briefly discussed. In this article an attempt is made to define the term ‘promotion’. In this regard reference is made to some cases adjudicated upon by the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (the “CCMA”). The cases referred to seem to favour the view that when one is defining the term ‘promotion’, regard must be had to the employment relationship between the employer and the employee, as well as the nature of the employee’s current work in relation to the work applied for, in order to establish whether in fact a promotion has taken place. It is necessary to consider what unfair conduct is defined as in the context of promotions. It seems that managerial prerogative is at the center of the enquiry into unfair conduct of the employer. Further to the analysis of unfair conduct, various principles that govern both procedural and substantive unfairness are considered. These principles are dealt with separately with reference to case law. Lastly the dispute resolution mechanisms are considered and a brief discussion on remedies is undertaken. The remedies are discussed with reference to case law, as well as the provisions of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 as amended by the Labour Relations Amendment Act 12 of 2002. The broad headings of this article are accordingly unfair labour practices, definition of promotions, unfair conduct of the employer, onus of proof and remedies. It is concluded with the proposition that once an employer has set policies and procedures in place in dealing with promotions, then such an employer should stick to those policies and procedures within the context of the law, as well as within the percepts of the vague and nebulous term of ‘fairness’. Should the employer fail to do so, the majority of cases indicate that such an employer will be guilty of an unfair labour practice relating to promotion.

The history of constructive dismissals in South Africa imitated from the English law in 1986, when an employee successfully challenged the employer on this particular concept after an incident relating a forced resignation. From the literature it is clear that constructive dismissal, as we know it today, originated from our English counterparts. Being a relatively new concept, the South African labour laws caught on at a rapid pace. The leading case on which the South African authors leaned towards was the English case of Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough). In South Africa constructive dismissals were given statutory force in unfair dismissal law and is defined as the coerced or forced termination of a contract of employment resultant in from the conduct of the employer. There are many forms in which constructive dismissals would postulate that could justify an employee to lay claim to constructive dismissal. Examples thereof are the amendment of the contract of employment, rude language and sexual harassment. It is eminent that certain elements should be present before an employee would have reasonable prospects of succeeding with such a claim. Constructive dismissal comes into the equation when an employer behaves in such a manner that eventually and ultimately leads to the employee, being the receiving party, in the employment relationship, to terminate the employment contract. This termination must be the direct result of the conduct of the employer that irreparably frustrated the relationship and made it impossible for the employee to remain in the service of the employer in question. It appears that the courts have taken a firm stance on coerced or forced resignation, in its various forms tantamount to breach of contact, that any sufficiently unreasonable conduct by an employer may justify that the employee to terminate services and lay claim to the fact that he had been constructively dismissed. It needs to be mentioned that the fact that the mere fact that the employer acted in an unreasonable manner would not suffice and it is up to the employee to prove how the conduct of the employer justified the employee to leave and claim that the employer’s conduct resulted in a material or fundamental beach of the employment contract. In dealing with the contingency of the concept of constructive dismissals it has been expressly provided for in numerous systems of labour law. As is seen herein, a constructive dismissal consists in the termination of the employment contract by reason of the employee’s rather than the employer’s own immediate act. The act of the employee is precipitated by earlier conduct on the part of the employer, which conduct may or may not be justified. Various authors and academics endeavoured to defined constructive dismissal and all had the same or at least some of the elements present, to justify constructive dismissal. The most glaring element being the termination of employment as a result of the any conduct that is tantamount to a breach going to the root of the relationship by the employer, that frustrated the relationship between the employer and the employee and rendered it irreparable. The employee resigns or repudiates the employment contract as a result of the employer normally not leaving the employee any other option but to resign. This can also be termed as coerced or forced resignations and are commonly better known as “constructive dismissal”. The employee is deemed to have been dismissed, even though it is the employee who terminated the employment contract. The most important element to mention is the employee terminated the employment contract, ie resigned yet this is regarded as a dismissal, it is however for the employee to first lay a claim at the proper authority and the employee must prove his / her allegation before it can be a constructive dismissal. As will become clear, that the onus of proof is on the employee to show that the termination of employment resulted from the conduct of the employer. Equally true as in all cases of constructive dismissal, including cases of sexual harassment, being a ground for constructive dismissal, the employee must prove that to remain in service would have been unbearable and intolerable. Sexual harassment is one of the most difficult forms of constructive dismissals, in many cases there are no witnesses and the employee either “suffers in silence or opt to place her dignity at stake to prove her case. It seems as though the test is to determine if the employer’s conduct evinced a deliberate and oppressive intention to have the employment terminated and left the employee with only one option that of resignation to protect her interests. Employees have a right to seek statutory relief and needs to be protected. If a coerced or forced resignation had taken place irrespective whether the employee resigned or not. It is against this back drop that constructive dismissals was given legality and are now recognized as one of the four forms of dismissals in terms of the Act.

In this treatise the South African law relating to unfair discrimination is discussed. The development is traced from the previous dispensation and the few pronouncements of the Industrial Court on discrimination in employment. Thereafter the actual provisions in the law presently applicable, including the Constitution is considered. With reference to leading cases the issue of positive discrimination by adopting affirmative action measures is evaluated and reference is made to other defences like inherent requirements for the job and a general fairness defence. The conclusion is reached that South African law is developing to give effect to the notion of substantive equality with a view to eradicate the systematic discrimination of the past.

This treatise considers the promotion process in the workplace and focuses on the meaning of promotion and the provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 19951 (Hereinafter referred to as the LRA) relating to promotion. It also considers unfair labour practices from an employee’s perspective. Chapter 2 of this treatise discusses the processes employers should follow when dealing with promotions. Neither the LRA nor the Constitution provides employees with a right to be promoted. However, the Constitution2 provides that all workers have the right to fair labour practices. The concept of unfair labour practices was introduced in South Africa in 1979 following the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission. For a long time in South Africa the concept of unfair labour practice was defined in broad terms and included unprotected strikes and lockouts. It was left to the Industrial Court to determine conduct which constituted an unfair labour practice. The promulgation of LRA (which took effect in 1996) provided a clear definition of what constitute unfair labour practice in the workplace. The LRA provided a closed list of practices which constitute an unfair labour practice which provided as follows: “(a) unfair conduct by the employer relating to the promotion, demotion, probation (excluding disputes about dismissals for a reason relating to probation) or training of an employee or relating to the provision of benefits to an employee; (b) unfair suspension of an employee or any other unfair disciplinary action short of dismissal in respect of an employee; (c) a failure or refusal by an employer to reinstate or re-employ a former employee in terms of any agreement; and (d) an occupational detriment, other than dismissal, in contravention of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2000 (Act No. 26 of 2000), on account of the employee having made a protected disclosure defined in that Act.”The LRA brought about significant changes including the exemption of trade unions from committing unfair labour practice to the employers as it was the position under the old Act. There are conflicting views amongst employers and employees as well as labour law experts regarding the determination of the remedies available to applicants when unfairness has been proven in promotion disputes. It is has been observed that many awards has been successfully reviewed by employers, particularly awards that involves protective promotion. Chapter one will be an introduction regarding unfair labour practice, the originality of the concept and the changes and developments the concept has gone through. Chapter two will investigate the meaning of promotion in the workplace. This chapter will focus on the definition of promotion. Elements that constitute promotion will also be addressed. Chapter three considers the provisions of the LRA relating to unfair labour practice: promotion. However, the focus will be narrowed down from the definition of unfair labour practice to the issue of promotion as it is central to the study. Chapter four will examine the manner in which the applicants are differentiated. Furthermore, this chapter will also address the issue of whether the internal applicant should be given preference on the basis that he or she has been working in the organisation but not in the advertised post. Chapter five discusses the importance of substantive and procedural fairness in promotion processes. Chapter six examine the appropriate remedies for aggrieved applicants during the promotion process. A disappointed candidate has a statutory right to approach the relevant bargaining council to seek recourse with regard to the matter. The dispute must be referred to the CCMA within 90 days by the aggrieved applicant.

The core of the research focuses on the Temporary Employment Services (TES) Industry and its ability to provide labour flexibility for a number of client firms. The underlying notion that work is changing and becoming more flexible creates an exploratory realm for the concept of non-standard employment. The thesis draws on the conceptual model of the „flexible firm‟ and argues that the rise in non-standard forms of employment, particularly temporary employment within the TES industry, is primarily a result of the demand for labour flexibility. The TES industry that offers „labour on demand‟ is found to be an extremely secretive industry that is diverse in both its structure and services. The thesis reveals that the clients within the triangular employment relationship (TER) are reaping the most benefits especially with regard to escaping their obligations as the employer. The thesis explores human resource practices, unfair labour practices and the extensive loopholes exploited by the TES industry because of poor regulation. Consequently, the industry creates an „underclass‟ that is unprotected, insecure and easily exploitable. Qualitative research techniques were used in the form of semi-structured interviews. The thesis provides insights into the demand and supply of temporary workers in Port Elizabeth and addresses the problems associated with a TER and the TES industry as a whole.

This research paper explores the means at the disposal of employers and employees to address the phenomenon of unfair labour practice relating to promotion in the workplace. Furthermore the paper endeavours to illustrate that there are aspects of South African law that provide a framework within which unfair labour practices can be addressed in the workplace. As I explore these fundamental issues of the law, the fairness relating to recruitment and selection practices will be examined. Some recommendations are also made as to how departments and organisations must address promotion issues at the workplace. There are often perceptions of alleged unfairness committed by employers in the workplace. These perceptions emanate from a number of allegations. The allegations include but are not limited to past practices, policy considerations, acting in higher positions, prior promises, being better qualified, receiving higher marks in the interviews, irregular conduct by the interviewing panel, unfair decisions by appointing authority or their failure to apply their minds, affirmative action or equity considerations. The study seeks to explore some of these allegations and further provide certainty as to what the legal recourse is under those circumstances. The research further seeks to provide the legal certainty pertaining to issues of promotion in the workplace. The study commences on a general approach to the principles of law relating to unfair labour practice in the public sector. Further developments of the law relating to promotion as it applies to the education sector are explored. The study culminates with possible remedies available to instances where an unfair conduct has been found to be committed by the employer during the promotion process. There is sufficient case law which covers the promotion processes. The study also exposes forms of relief which can be awarded to applicants who had lodged disputes in which it is found that indeed the employer had committed unfair labour practice relating to promotion. The study further aims to explore both procedural and substantive fairness with regard to appointment and promotion processes. Issues which are dealt with concerning fairness in promotion disputes include polygraph tests, whether there are hard and fast rules to the process, whether employees have the general right to promotion, what the requirements for fair appointment or promotion are, the law on substantive fairness, affirmative action and promotion, the consequences of failure to appoint the most suitable candidate, dealing with candidates who obtained higher scores in the interviews, promoting a candidate who had not met minimum requirements and promoting candidates based on flawed scores. The research also deals with frivolous referrals of disputes and costs which can be awarded against such applicants. Further issues which are dealt with in this research include the concept of “joinder” which is critical where there is an incumbent in the post which is disputed and the relief sought is that such post must be set aside. Further clarity is given on who is supposed to be joined in a dispute which is referred in the education sector. The CCMA rules on joinder are also clarified. The consequences of failure to join the incumbent are also dealt with. The research is also clarifying the concept of prematurity or ripeness in promotion disputes and its consequent lack of jurisdiction if such is referred.