Orientador: Cláudio Salvadori Dedecca / Tese (doutorado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Economia / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-18T03:53:18Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Hinz_HenriqueMacedo_D.pdf: 1295749 bytes, checksum: 724f7ae46a8987c2504f6d9dd505d110 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011 / Resumo: A presente tese busca analisar o papel da Constituição Federal de 1988 no que se refere à regulação do trabalho, quer em relação ao modelo vigente até sua promulgação, quer em relação às alterações legislativas ocorridas após sua promulgação. A questão que se põe é saber se ela alterou o padrão corporativista até então existente ou não e, em relação às normas que lhe sucederam, se teve ela a força normativa para garantir a ocorrência dos princípios que a inspiraram / Abstract: This thesis intends to analyze the role of the 1988 Federal Constitution in terms of labor regulation, both in reference to the model existing until its promulgation, and in relation to the rules that came after it. The point to be analyzed is to know if it has changed the corporativist pattern of labor regulation that existed until 1988 or not and, in relation to the rules that succeeded it, if it had the normative capacity to guarantee the application of the principles that it has inspired / Doutorado / Economia Social e do Trabalho / Doutor em Desenvolvimento Economico

M.Phil. (Labour Relations) / Please refer to full text to view abstract

M.Comm. / The purpose of the study is to determine, through literature research, what the current situation is regarding Labour Relation Management in Education. In order to search for answers, various resources have been used -the majority of which are primary and authoritive of nature. In the first instance a few basic concepts and definitions in labour law in education were studied. Issues which were discussed focused on the definition of employer and employee and the relationship between them. The professional nature of the teaching profession was discussed, including the various councils which have an impact on industrial relations in education. In chapter three an in depth analysis has been made of the role of the various legislation regarding industrial relations in the educational field. The focus of this analysis was on the following key legislation: The Constitution 108 of 1996 The Labour Relation Act 66 of 1995. The Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998. The Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 The Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 The Development of Basic Skills Act. South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 10 Regulations: Regulations Regarding Terms and Conditions Of Employment of Educators R 1743 OF 13 November 1995. Regulations on Personnel Administration Measures (PAM) 18 February 1999. In chapter four the disciplinary process in education was discussed at length. The focus here was on the disciplinary code, principles of the disciplinary process as well as internal disciplinary procedures -specifically by whom and at what level it should be managed. A clear distinction was made between internal and external procedures. The principle of natural justice under the audi alteram partem and the nemo iudex in propria causa principle was discussed. An important aspect here is the appointment and dismissal of teachers in governing body posts. In chapter six the grievance procedure in education-such as the definition of grievance and how it should be dealt with, were discussed. The management of grievances as quickly and as close as possible to the cause as well as the reaction and conduct of the parties concerned, were also discussed. In conclusion the study was summarized and certain shortfalls highligted. Certain recommendations were also made, especially concerning the Administrative Act 3 2000, and the use thereof in labour relations.

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.

It took 18 months of intensive negotiation at the Millennium Labour Council, NEDLAC and the Labour Portfolio Committee before the Labour Relations Amendment Act of 20021 completed its passage through Parliament, taking effect on 1 August 2002. Fifty-seven amendments to specific sections of the Labour Relations Act2 and its schedules cure some obvious anomalies in the original version. It is further apparent that the legislature has taken cognisance of the observations by judges and arbitrators, who voiced their criticism in respect of certain aspects of the original "Act". The amended "Act"3 does appear to be a genuine commitment by both business and organised labour to improve efficiency in the labour market, to promote employment creation and to protect vulnerable workers. Improved dispute resolution mechanisms, enforcement mechanisms and the resurgence of an unfettered discretion in awarding compensation go some way to improving the application of the "Act". The most dramatic amendments have taken place in the law regulating retrenchments by large employers, inclusive of the controversial introduction of a right to strike after retrenchments of this nature have been effected, and the regulation of the transfer of a business as a going concern and its impact on workers. Critics indicate that business and organised labour have subscribed to the package of amendments despite respective reservations and due to certain time constraints. The nett result is a package of amendments that could be described as failing to address, in certain respects, or intentionally overlooking, areas of the "Act" that have traditionally been shown wanting in the past. In the individual employment law sphere specifically, the failure to address the meaning of "benefits" in the definition of unfair labour practices; to allocate a precise meaning to the concept of the transfer of a going concern; or to regulate the conduct of employers when transferring employees, remain some of the areas for concern. It appears that the legislature has decided that certain issues should be resolved by the Labour Court, and ultimately the Labour Appeal Court, on a case-by-case basis rather than by legislative intervention. Whilst this approach has merit, it does present problems to those seeking to apply the provisions of the amended "Act" 5 in everyday practice. On the whole, the amendments do not, nor were they designed to, mark a major shift in the government's labour market policy. The changes clearly focus on correcting and clarifying sections of the "Act", which have resulted in unintended consequences, or lost touch with commercial reality, over the past seven years.

The recent amendments made to employment laws and in particular the rewriting of the South African Labour Relations Act has brought into focus the diverse and conflicting interests of employers and employees, which is a concern of labour law analysts. This appraisal of South African of strike law examines the statutory and judicially established labour law in regard to the phenomenon of collective industrial action by employees and the regulation of its occurrence. Historical developments in strike law are traced from the early 1900’s. A period of segregated trade unionism, led ultimately to the introduction of a more inclusive system of regulation, which has in turn been modified to bring the law into line with the new constitutional imperatives. Industrial action occurred, often unregulated and regardless of statutory limitations, and in particular that industrial action which related to mass protest action, now recognized as a specific form of strike. The now repealed Labour Relations Act 28 of 1956 is examined with regard to its strike regulating provisions, and identification of what were then new, unrecognized forms of strike action. It has allowed concepts and principles to be developed, under the unfair labour practice jurisdiction of the Industrial Court, much of which has been incorporated in the new Labour Relations Act. The legislation on strike law, which has been developed over the years, has been refined by the constitutional imperatives introduced to the national legal system. The relevant aspects of the new Constitution Act 108 of 1996 and its pervasive effect on strike law are examined. The right to strike in South African labour law, together with the protection of collective bargaining, is now constitutionally entrenched, and the right to strike is now accepted as a necessary adjunct to collective bargaining. It is necessary to give effect to the Constitution in national legislation, and the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 endeavours to accomplish this in chapter IV in regard to strike law, which, it could be argued, limits rather than gives expression to the right to strike. iii The Labour Relations Act of 1995 is then discussed with reference to protected and prohibited strikes, and unregulated strike action. It will be evident that the Act has endeavoured to contain unprocedural and productivity draining industrial action, by subjecting rights disputes to arbitration and Labour Court adjudication, subject to certain exceptions. The recourse to lock-out, as the employer’s prerogative and general corollary of strike action, is briefly discussed. The case law relating to strikes is discussed in respect of both the 1956 Act and the new Labour Relations Act of 1995. Among the issues explored are the strike provisions which have been developed in statute and labour related common law, such as the identification of issues in dispute, notice of strike, the issuing of ultimatums, the audi altarem partem rule and the court’s approach to protected and unprotected strikes. The intention is to determine trends resulting from amendments to the law and draw inferences regarding, in particular, the unregulated form of strikes that occur within the scope of the protections offered by the Act. It is the intention to determine whether the desired effect has been achieved by implementing legislative reforms in response to public policy considerations.

This paper seeks to bring clarity to a number of issues that arise from a process resulting from the unilateral variation of terms and conditions of employment and the conflict management and dispute resolution processes. The variation of employment terms particularly when it is driven by one party to the employment relationship can cause instability, insecurity, confusion and uncertainty to the parties involved. The nature of work is not constant and therefore changes are inevitable. This then has an effect of bringing disorder not only to the employer-employee relationship but also to the labour relations balance. In many instances and depending on whether it is the employer or employee who propagates the changes, the reasons to alter the conditions are different. Employers usually cite operational or economic reasons that are meant for the survival of the business as the need to make the changes. From the employees’ side the changes are necessitated by reasons aimed at a move from protecting the favourable employment conditions already acquired to improving them or attaining more. In the event that the parties to the employment relationship do not agree to the changes proposed and implemented, a dispute usually arises. This results from the failure of a consultation process, negotiations, persuasion or collective bargaining in general. In essence such a dispute arises from absence of consent to the changes. The failure of a bargaining system requires the process to assume a new nature. The dispute resolution systems and the conflict management systems follow as both the appropriate and necessary steps. The bargaining power together with the intervention of the third party is at the centre of this phase. The parties, depending on the nature of the dispute, the conditions that iv are changed and who are affected by the changes, have choices on what dispute resolution mechanisms to employ. The choice made has a huge impact on both the outcome required in the form of recourse, how the dispute will be resolved or how the conflict will be managed. There is legislative intervention with regards to the resolution of the conflictual scenarios that arise from disputes on unilateral variation of terms and conditions of employment. There are also non-statutory measures available to the parties. The choices are vast as to when can the variation take place, the reasons for the changes, the parties involved, the possible dispute resolution mechanisms, what can be varied and whether the unilateral implementation can be viewed as fair.

The lock-out is accepted as a necessary element of collective bargaining. The law relating to lock-out is considered as a legitimate instrument of industrial action. There are a number of procedural requirements for a legal lock-out. The dispute should be referred to a bargaining council (or where there is no bargaining council with jurisdiction, to a statutory council) or, failing which, the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration. If the bargaining/statutory council or the commission fails to resolve the dispute, it is no longer required that a ballet should be brought out in favour of the contemplated lock-out before the lock-out could be legal: all that is required is that the period of notice of the intended lock-out is given. The lock-out may either be protected or unprotected. It is protected if it is not prohibited absolutely and the various procedural requirements have been complied with. The protected lock-out is immuned from civil liability. On the other hand a lockout will be unprotected if it does not comply with sections 64 and 65 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995. In the circumstances the Labour Court has exclusive jurisdiction to grant an interdict or order to restrain any person from participating in unprotected industrial action and to order the payment of just and equitable compensation for any loss attributable to the lock-out. Lock-outs are prohibited in specific instances and allowed with some qualifications in others. For example, employers engaged in the provision of essential or maintenance services are prohibited from locking their employees out in order compel them to comply with their demand. Such essential services are Parliamentary services, the South African Police Service and a service the interruption of which endangers the life, personal safety or health of the whole. A distinction is also drawn between offensive and defensive lock-outs. Defensive lock-outs involve the closure of an employer’s premises or the shutting down of its operations during industrial action initiated by workers. The offensive lock-outs, also known as “pre-emptive lock-outs”, amount to an employer initiated form of industrial iv action where the premises are locked and workers are excluded and prevented from working. The law relating to lock-out in South Africa is clearly put in its proper perspective by the interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 200 of 1993, final Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 108 of 1996, Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 and in Ex Parte Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly: In re Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.1 However the situation is unsatisfactory to employers. The interim Constitution guaranteed the “right to strike” and “recourse to the lock-out”. Under the final Constitution lock-outs enjoy no direct protection. The Constitutional Court’s certification judgement rejects the view that it is necessary in order to maintain equality to entrench the right to lock-out once the right to strike has been included. The Constitutional Court concluded that the right to strike and the right to lock-out are not always and necessarily equivalent. However the purpose of the lock-out is to settle collective dispute of the ways permitted by the Labour Relations Act, 1995. The purpose is not to terminate the relationship between the employer and the employee. The employer may not, for example, dismiss employees finally at the end of an unsuccessful lock-out in order to avoid the consequences of impending strike action by the employees.

Labour law in South Africa has evolved over the past century at an ever increasing pace. The establishment of a democratic government in 1995 has been the trigger for a large number of labour law statutes being promulgated, particularly with reference to the laws governing the employment relationship and dismissal. From very humble and employer biased dispute resolution application under the common law of contract, labour law in this country has evolved through the various acts culminating in a labour law system which is highly regulated and codified. Dismissal for medical incapacity in this treatise is reviewed with regard to the applicable statutes and the various codes of good practice as the law has evolved and developed from the period covered by the common law through that covered by the 1995 LRA up to and including the current period. Particular attention is paid to both substantive and procedural requirements as well as the remedies applicable under the different legal regimes and the pertinent tribunals and courts. Regard is also given to the duration and causes of incapacity and the effect this may have on the applicable remedy applied by these tribunals. It will become apparant that the medically incapacitated employee occupied a relatively weak and vulnerable position under the common law as opposed to the current position under the 1995 LRA. The influence of the remedies applied by the tribunals under the 1956 LRA are clearly evident in the current regulations and codes under the 1995 LRA which contain specific statutory provisions for employees not to be unfairly dismissed. Distinctions are drawn between permissible and impermissible dismissals, with medical incapacity falling under the former. v Furthermore, a distinction is drawn statutorily between permanent and temporary illhealth/ injury incapacity with detailed guidelines for substantive and procedural fairness requirements to be met by employers. The powers of the specialist tribunals (CCMA, Bargaining Councils and Labour Courts) are regulated by statutory provisions and deal with appropriate remedies (reinstatement and/or compensation) a wardable in appropriate circumstances. Certain specific areas nonetheless still remain problematic for these tribunals and hence questions that require clear direction from the drafters of our law are: 1. How to distinguish misconduct in alcohol and drug abuse cases? 2. What degree of intermittent absenteeism is required before dismissal would be warranted? In certain other areas the tribunals have been fairly consistent and prescriptive in their approach and remedies awarded. Included here would be permanent incapacity, HIV cases and misconduct. It will emerge, however, that under the 1995 LRA the position of employees and the protections afforded them have been greatly increased.

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.