Thesis (LLM. (Labour Law)) -- University of Limpopo, 2012 / Since the advent of constitutional democracy, there has been a steady growth in the volume of employment and labour protection legislation.1 More than a decade following the enactment of the new labour code has witnessed an avalanche of decisions of courts and arbitration awards of labour adjudicatory tribunals.2 Many of them involve unfair dismissals generally, unfair suspensions,3 residual unfair labour practices,4 disputes over promotion hinging on affirmative action, employment equity and unfair discrimination,5 the recurrent problem of jurisdiction,6 and review of arbitration proceedings.7 While wage and disputes8 on the one hand, and strikes9 on the other will always feature as perennial events in the labour-management calendar, truly important interface over several years has been dismissal of employees for automatically unfair reasons. 1 See eg, Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995; Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997; Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998; Educators Employment Act 76 of 1988; Promotion of Administrative Justice 3 of 2000; Protected Disclosures Act 26 of 2000; Public Service Act (Proc 103 of 1994) Skills Development Act 97 of 1998; Skills Development Levies Act 9 of 1999; Unemployment Insurance Act 30 of 1966; The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000. 2 See generally; Zondo, R ‘The new Labour Courts and labour law: The first seven months of the new LRA’ (1998) 19 ILJ 686; Wallis, M.J.D. ‘The new era – How decisive is the break from the past (1999) 20 ILJ 902. 3 Ngwenya v Premier of KwaZulu-Natal [2001] 8 BLLR 924 (LC); MEC for Tourism Affairs: Free State v Nondumo & others (2005) 26 ILJ 1337 (LC); SAPU & another v Minister of Safety & Security & another (2005) 26 ILJ 524 (LC). 4Department of Finance v CCMA & others (2003) 24 ILJ 1969 (LAC). 5 See eg: Minister of Finance & another v Van Heerden (2005) 26 ILJ 1593 (CC). For a detailed discussion: Zondo, R ‘The new Labour Courts and labour law: The first seven months of the new LRA’ (1998) 19 ILJ 686; Wallis, M.J.D. ‘The new era – How decisive is the break from the past (1999) 20 ILJ 902. 6 See eg: Old Mutual Life Assurance Co SA Ltd v Gumbi (2007) 28 ILJ 1499 (SCA). See also Pretorius SC, P ‘A dual system of dismissal law: Comment on Boxer Superstores Mthatha & another v Mbenya (2007) 28 ILJ 2209 (SCA) (2007) 28 ILJ 2172; 7 See generally Carephone (Pty) Ltd v Marcus NO & others1999 (3) SA 304 (LAC); Sidumo & another v Rustenburg Mines Ltd & others (2007) 28 ILJ 2405 (CC). 8 See generally, Du Toit, D ‘What is the future of collective bargaining (and Labour Law) in South Africa?’ (2007) 28 ILJ 1405; Landman, A ‘The duty to bargain – an old weapon pressed into service’ (2004) 25 ILJ 39. 9 Modise v Steve’s Spar Blackheath (2000) 21 ILJ 519 (LAC); PSA v Minister of Justice & Constitutional Development & others [2001] 11 BLLR 1250 (LC). See also Myburgh, JF ‘100 years of strike law’ (2004) 25 ILJ 962. 8 In pith and substance, the study concerned with dismissals that undermine the fundamental values that labour relations community in our country depends on to regulate its very existence. In the first part of the study, the constitutional and statutory framework will be briefly considered. An early appreciation of the constitutionalisation of the right to fair labour practices will provide a point of reference for evolving contemporary labour law corpus on automatically unfair dismissals. The second part takes a frontal examination of novel questions of constitutional vintage concerning automatically unfair dismissals. In turn, this raises questions of dismissals for exercising statutory employment rights. The other aspects are instances of employee victimisation resulting from lodging a grievance, protected disclosures, as well as trade union activities. Also arising are dismissals that can be ascribed to unfair discrimination. While the first part of this study concentrates on those situations where the employer has victimised and/or dismissed for exercising statutory rights, part three examines that question which has vexed the Labour Court, Labour Appeal, and to a lesser extent the Supreme Court of Appeal in recent times, the intersection between automatically unfair dismissals on the one hand, and corporate restructuring, on the other. In effect, the contentious issues naturally call for discussion: the uneasy relationship between corporate restructuring and collective bargaining, dismissal of protected strikers for operational reasons, dismissals in support of employer’s demands as well as dismissals of transferred employees consequent to transfer of undertaking. Before moving onto the heavyweight topic of automatically unfair dismissals, it is perhaps appropriate at this stage to reflect on the constitutional and statutory framework underpinning the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995.

Thesis (LLM. (Labour Law)) -- University of Limpopo, 2013 / This mini-dissertation outlines the protection of rights of people living with HIV/AIDS in the workplace. It will highlight the fact that people living with HIV/AIDS can perform the work as long as they medically fit. It will show the need to promote anti discriminatory laws in the workplace. People think that HIV/AIDS can be transmitted through casual contact but that will be shown in the study that HIV/AIDS can not be transmitted by casual contact. The mini-dissertation also outlines the need to educate employees about their rights more particularly those living with HIV/AIDS in the workplace. Therefore policies such as affirmative action must be implemented to affirm several advantages to people living with HIV/AIDS. Equality is what people must enjoy in the country in terms of section 9 of the Constitution including people living with HIV/AIDS.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 2000. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 311-320).

The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA) was formulated by consensus from Government, Labour and Business. The advent of the new democratic dispensation brought with it the need to bring reforms to the country’s repressive labour laws, which were the hallmarks of the former apartheid regime. The new democratic dispensation’s priority was to ensure that the laws governing the employment relationship were again in line, with the International Labour Organization’s requirements (ILO). The consolidation of the country’s labour laws became critical for the new democratic dispensation because it became imperative that labour laws, once and for all became inclusive of all South Africa’s working force. During this post democratic period South Africa has been able to bring this consolidation to our regulatory framework through democratizing labour relations. This has meant that all organized workers for the first time after 1995, could have access to collective bargaining. South Africa has also enjoyed a period of relative labour stability during this period but only until recently, has the institution of collective bargaining been under the severest attack. This contestation in this labour regime is about the constitutional right to engage in collective bargaining. It has become of paramount importance to understand the meaning of this right to engage in collective bargaining, how far does this right extend to organized employees and most importantly what are now the impediments to the realization of this right? This is a broad and a very important topic in our labour law jurisprudence. The rationale for this treatise is to articulate the right to engage in collective bargaining, amid recent developments. At the same time to probe whether or not a justiciable duty to bargain in good faith (legally enforceable duty), should be reintroduced in our collective bargaining framework. This would be an option in reestablishing this institution in the face of insurmountable challenges, particularly as far as managing the conduct of bargaining parties during the collective bargaining process. The LRA does not envision such a legally enforceable duty to bargain in our labour relations framework, preferring rather apolicy based on voluntarism. The LRA has instead created a legally recognized framework were bargaining parties, determine their own collective process, without undue interference from the state and the courts. This has been the position since the inception of the new democratic order.Times have changed constitutional challenges have been mounting against provisions of the LRA, which have been deemed by some as unconstitutional. This is reference to the inaccessibility of the collective bargaining process; relating directly to the right to engage in collective bargaining.The disjuncture between the Constitution and the enabling legislation the LRA will also be scrutinized, as the result has been confusion regarding the meaning and the application of this constitutional right to engage in collective bargaining.

This paper is divided into two distinct sections. The first being an analysis of the legal protection of temporary employees as things currently stand. It deals with the various labour laws that currently regulate temporary employment as well as the temporary employment contract and the common-law. The second section summarises and analyses the provisions of the Labour Relations Amendment Bill and the Basic Conditions of Employment Bill as they apply to fixed-term employees. Temporary employees are protected by the general protection extended to all employees in terms of section 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, guaranteeing all employees the “right to fair labour practice”. The Labour Relations Act has as one of its main objectives to give effect to and regulate the fundamental rights contained in the Constitution. Thus the Labour Relations Act must not only give effect to constitutional rights but it must also ensure that it in no way unreasonably or unjustly denies or limits constitutional rights. Temporary employees have a number of labour laws protecting their interests. Where the provisions of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, a Bargaining Council Agreement or a Sectoral Determination do not apply the employee will rely on the terms of the fixed-term employment contract and thereafter the common law for protection. The only protection offered to temporary employees contained in the Labour Relations Act is in section 186(1)(b), where a dismissal is defined to include the non-renewal of temporary contracts of employment where there is a reasonable expectation of renewal on the same or similar terms. This provision has proved to be highly controversial in that it does not expressly cater for temporary employees who harbour reasonable expectations of indefinite employment. An analysis is made of the most important cases relating to section 186(1)(b). The second section unpacks and critically analyses the Labour Relations Amendment Bill and the Basic Conditions of Employment Bill which have been long in the offing and when they are finally enacted, will bring with them sweeping changes for atypical employment . The amendments will drastically change the way employers make use of fixed-term employees as well as the way in which Temporary Employment Services may conduct business if they are in fact able to keep working at all. There is very little literature of substance written about the Labour Relations Amendment Bill as it applies to atypical employment. The fact that the proposed amendments have changed so many times over such a long period of time might have deterred many writers from investing time and effort in attempts to analyse and summarise the amendments. Articles posted on the internet are in the main short and have very little content. No books were found with any discussion that pertains to the amendments. The amendments divide employees involved in atypical employment into two different categories. These categories consist of employees earning above the threshold in terms of section 6(3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and those earning below this threshold. All fixed-term employees may rely on the provisions of section 186 of the Labour Relations Act. Employees earning below the threshold are considered to be the most vulnerable and have been afforded additional protections in terms of sections 198(A), (B) and (C). Issues surrounding Temporary Employment Services and fixed-term employees have been very divisive and have been the topics of heated debate at all levels of Industrial Relations for a long time. Discussions regarding the use of the services of Temporary Employment Services can be highly emotive, with Temporary Employment Services being accused of committing wideThis paper is divided into two distinct sections. The first being an analysis of the legal protection of temporary employees as things currently stand. It deals with the various labour laws that currently regulate temporary employment as well as the temporary employment contract and the common-law. The second section summarises and analyses the provisions of the Labour Relations Amendment Bill and the Basic Conditions of Employment Bill as they apply to fixed-term employees. Temporary employees are protected by the general protection extended to all employees in terms of section 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, guaranteeing all employees the “right to fair labour practice”. The Labour Relations Act has as one of its main objectives to give effect to and regulate the fundamental rights contained in the Constitution. Thus the Labour Relations Act must not only give effect to constitutional rights but it must also ensure that it in no way unreasonably or unjustly denies or limits constitutional rights. Temporary employees have a number of labour laws protecting their interests. Where the provisions of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, a Bargaining Council Agreement or a Sectoral Determination do not apply the employee will rely on the terms of the fixed-term employment contract and thereafter the common law for protection. The only protection offered to temporary employees contained in the Labour Relations Act is in section 186(1)(b), where a dismissal is defined to include the non-renewal of temporary contracts of employment where there is a reasonable expectation of renewal on the same or similar terms. This provision has proved to be highly controversial in that it does not expressly cater for temporary employees who harbour reasonable expectations of indefinite employment. An analysis is made of the most important cases relating to section 186(1)(b). The second section unpacks and critically analyses the Labour Relations Amendment Bill and the Basic Conditions of Employment Bill which have been long in the offing and when they are finally enacted, will bring with them sweeping changes for atypical employment . The amendments will drastically change the way employers make use of fixed-term employees as well as the way in which Temporary Employment Services may conduct business if they are in fact able to keep working at all. There is very little literature of substance written about the Labour Relations Amendment Bill as it applies to atypical employment. The fact that the proposed amendments have changed so many times over such a long period of time might have deterred many writers from investing time and effort in attempts to analyse and summarise the amendments. Articles posted on the internet are in the main short and have very little content. No books were found with any discussion that pertains to the amendments. The amendments divide employees involved in atypical employment into two different categories. These categories consist of employees earning above the threshold in terms of section 6(3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and those earning below this threshold. All fixed-term employees may rely on the provisions of section 186 of the Labour Relations Act. Employees earning below the threshold are considered to be the most vulnerable and have been afforded additional protections in terms of sections 198(A), (B) and (C).

This paper focuses on the the interplay between Free Trade Zones (FTZs) and labour rights. It seeks to determine the effects of FTZs on the full realization of labour rights in Mozambique and Namibia. / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2007. / A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Law University of Pretoria, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Masters of Law (LLM in Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa). Prepared under the supervision of Dr Paulo Comoane of the Unicersidade Eduardo Mondlane, Maputo, Mozambique. / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/ / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

The decline of trade unionism is a well-documented phenomenon. Possible causes for this decline include the changing demographic composition of the workforce and effective anti-union campaigns by employers. Unions and employers share several common avenues in their respective efforts (1.c., increasing union membership and continuing effective anti-union efforts) including issues of importance to employees and socializing new labor market entrants. Such issues of importance include employment rights issues (e.g., drug testing, polygraphs, privacy, and scheduling work). Such groups of new labor force entrants include forthcoming college graduates. This study, therefore, investigates employment rights issues and attitudes toward unions in a sample of college students. More specifically, the study is formulated as a test of the classic Fishbein and Ajzen theory of beliefs and attitudes. Fishbein and Ajzen proposed that one’s attitude regarding an issue (e.g., drug testing) or object (e.g., unions) is a function of one’s factual knowledge regarding that issue or object and one’s socialization experiences regarding that issue or object. Thus, attitude toward unions is a function of factual knowledge about unions and socialization experiences. This study extends this model by proposing that attitudes toward employment rights issues should be related to attitude toward unions, such that individuals valuing employee rights should be more pro-union or view unions as protectors of employee rights. In this sample, factual knowledge about unions was not found to be related to attitude toward unions. However, personal experience with activities such as drug use was found to be inversely related to attitude toward an employer’s right to engage in activities such as drug or polygraph testing. Furthermore, work experience was found to be negatively related to attitude toward an employer’s right to engage in typical business activities such as scheduling work and determining pay. Factual knowledge regarding the legality of employer activities was also found to be negatively related to attitude toward an employer’s right to engage in personal inquiries. Finally, consonance between attitude toward unions and attitude toward employee/employment rights issues was demonstrated with respect to attitude toward an employer’s right to engage in activities such as personal inquiries and employer’s right to engage in normal business activities. / Master of Science

No abstract available / Jurisprudence / LL.M.

Thesis (LLD )--Stellenbosch University, 2011. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The importance of privacy lies in the fact that it represents the very idea of human dignity or the preservation of the ‘inner sanctum’. Not surprisingly, however, operational concerns of employers and technological developments combine continuously to challenge the preservation of privacy in the workplace. Employees the world over are exposed to numerous privacy invasive measures, including drug testing, psychological testing, polygraph testing, genetic testing, psychological testing, electronic monitoring and background checks. Hence, the issue at the heart of this dissertation is to determine to what extent privacy is protected in the South African workplace given advancements in technology and the implications (if any) for the right to privacy as such. A secondary aim of the dissertation is to attempt to provide a realistic balance between the privacy concerns of employees and the operational needs of employers in this technological age. As such the main focus of dissertation falls within the sphere of employment law. In order to provide an answer to the research issue discussed above, the dissertation addresses five ancillary or interrelated issues. First, the broad historical development of the legal protection of privacy is traced and examined. Second, a workable definition of privacy is identified with reference to academic debate and comparative legislative and judicial developments. Third, those policies and practices, which would typically threaten privacy in the employment sphere are identified and briefly discussed. Fourth, a detailed evaluation of the tension between privacy and a number of selected policies and practices in selected countries is provided. More specifically, the dissertation considers how these policies and practices challenge privacy, the rationale for their existence and, if applicable, how these policies and practices – if necessary through appropriate regulation – may be accommodated while simultaneously accommodating both privacy and the legitimate concerns of employers. The selection of these practices and policies is guided by two considerations. At the first level the emphasis is on those challenges to privacy, which can be traced back to technological developments and which, as such, foster new and unique demands to the accommodation of privacy in the workplace. The secondary emphasis is on those policies, which are representative of the fundamental challenges created by new technologies to privacy. To effectively address the above issues the dissertation uses the traditional legal methodology associated with comparative legal research, which includes a literature review of applicable law and legal frame work and a review of relevant case law and a comparative study of selected foreign jurisdictions. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Geen opsomming / Fulbright Foundation / Stellenbosch University / Mellon Foundation / NFR

No abstract available. / Thesis (M.Dev.Studies)-University of Natal, Durban, 2003.