The burden that South African labour law has to bear in relation to the economy is very heavy by international standards. In most industrially developed countries, the economy is strong enough either to provide jobs for most work-seekers or, failing that, an adequate social security system for households without breadwinners in place. In most developing countries with high unemployment rates, the labour law system makes only perfunctory effort to reach out to those facing economic marginalisation. South Africa, essentially a developing country, is not like that. The legal system is strong, works off a firm human rights base, and sets out to grapple with the issues. That is how it should be, but it comes at a price – an oftengraphic exposure of the limits of the law in a stressed society. Businesses operate for profit and survival according to the unsentimental ways of the market, and employees back in a bid to save jobs, lifestyles and livelihoods. The stakeholders use power when they have it, and make claims on the law when they don’t. The legislation and the case law reflect, add to and, to a degree, shape the complexities of these contests, and no more so than in the area of business restructuring.1 The new South Africa has quickly become the destination for foreign investment. The weakness of the rand against the dollar, pound, euro and with the “cost to sell and produce” being so low against these currencies, players on the corporate stage constantly change their make-up and composition. The larger engulfs the smaller, one company buys shares in another, or buys it out entirely, or all or part of its assets, and others are liquidated. In all these situations, employees in South Africa may find themselves with new bosses on the morning after. Under common law employees in this situation were deemed to have been discharged by the former employer, whether or not they have been offered positions in the transformed structure. If they did not want to work under it, they could not be forced to do so. That was because an employment contract was deemed in law to be one of a personal nature that could not be transferred from one employer to another without the employees consent. This research is conducted at an interesting time, when the amendments to the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 in respect of the transfer of a business, and in particular section 197, dealing with such matters comes into effect. It is also interesting in the sense that most judgements of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) and judgements of the Labour Court were moving more or less to a common approach or interpretation of section 197 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (hereinafter “the LRA”). Section 197 of the LRA sought to regulate the transfer of a business as a going concern and altered the common law regarding the transfer of a business in two situations – firstly when there is no insolvency, factual or legal, concerned, and secondly in the instance where the transferor is insolvent. The first extreme was when an employer is declared insolvent and the contracts of employment terminated automatically. The second extreme was from the first whereby the employer has to terminate the services of his employees and be liable to pay severance pay in terms of section 1893 of the LRA, which has also been amended along with section 197 of the LRA. It is as if this section was introduced to remedy these extremes. These extremes will be dealt with in detail in this paper. The transfer of goodwill and assets from the seller to the buyer occurs when a business is sold as a going concern. At common law the employees of a business cannot be transferred in the same manner. The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 altered this position. By enacting this section the legislature wanted to protect the interest of the employees in such transactions. Whether the legislature has succeeded or not is a matter that will be dealt with in this paper. It is all dependent on the interpretation of this section by the commissioners and judges. By including section 197 in the LRA, the legislature’s intention was to resolve the common law problem where employment contract terminated upon the sale of a business, and this section was intended to be an effective tool for protecting the employment of employees. In order to understand the labour law consequences of the transfer of a business, it is important to understand the provisions of sections 197 and 197A of the Labour Relations Amendment Act 2002. This will be dealt with and each section will be discussed in detail using relevant case law and literature. In considering investing in a South African based company by way of purchasing a share of the company and giving it your own flavour, one has to carefully consider the effects of this transaction. Companies wishing to restructure, outsource, merge or transfer some of its operations will need to understand what the implications of the labour legislation will have on their commercial rationale. Section 197 regulates the employment consequences when a transfer of a business takes place. This is defined to mean the transfer of a business by one employer (the old employer) to another employer (the new employer) as a going concern. Business is defined to include the whole or part of the business, trade undertaking or service. Like the current provision, the new provision referrers to the transfer of a business. It is therefore a wider concept than the sale of a business.4 No attempt is made to define what constitutes a going concern and the controversial issue of whether an outsourcing exercise can constitute a going concern transfer is also not explicitly dealt with. The fact that a business is defined to include a service may be an indication that it was intended to typify outsourcing as a going concern transfer, but this is not necessarily the case.5 The amendments to the Act6 came into effect on 1 August 2002. Sections 197 and 197(A) of the Act consequently seeks to regulate the transfer of a business. These regulations will be dealt with individually and in a format that would make each of the sections in sections 197 and 197(A), easy to understand and interpret. It will also become clear as to what the implications of each of the subsections will have on that commercial rationale. The issues highlighted above will be dealt with detail in this paper giving an overview of the Common Law, the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 and the new Labour Relations Amendment Act 2002.

The traditional employer-employee relationship came under an increased threat the past two decades with employers finding the option of utilising the services of Labour Brokers more attractive. Various reasons existed for this tendency amongst employers to opt for the use of Labour Brokers, some of these reasons being valid but mostly some reasons being born out of fear for the unknown labour law duties and obligations that were proposed to be placed on employers post 1994. In the absence of an action plan between the role players in the labour fraternity pathing the way traditional employer-employee relationships could be salvage, employers resorted to the appointment of Labour Brokers and Government on their part retaliated by considering either the total ban of Labour Brokers or the regulation of the profession to such an extent that same became largely unattractive and problematic. The non-addressing of problems and fears faced with by employers post 1994 resulted in an opportunity waisted to narrow the gap between employers and employees with the fight over work force power being the more important factor taken into consideration. This treatise will explore the options that faced the roll players post 1994 in the labour market, the reason for choices made and the effect same has had since on the labour market. The problematic amendments made to Section 198 of the Labour Relations Act in an attempt to iron out the wrinkles poor choices made by the stake holders over the regulations of Labour Brokers, will be discussed. The ripple effect the amendments to Section 198 of the Labour Relations Act had on other pieces of South African legislation will be considered and the uncertainty and confusion it has created discussed. Specific attention needs to be drawn to the intention of the legislature as to which party, the Labour Broker or employer, will be responsible for the ramifications of the wrong doings of an employee. Also, which party will be responsible to the employee to fulfil its labour rights as granted in the Constitution of South Africa. Unleashing reaction to the regulations of Temporary Employment Services does not seem to be a problem, the problem arises where the regulations proposed did not unleashed the desired reaction and roll players finding themselves frustrated and with having no alternative as to turn the Courts to solve the largely self-inflicted conundrum. The courts are left with the task of clarifying the legislature’s true intension in amending section 198 of the Labour Relations Act, which impact the writer with all due respect do not think the legislature even appreciated when the amendments were drafted. Currently, there is dividing views on the future of Labour Brokers per se in South Africa and the interpretation concerning Section 198 of the Labour Relations Act, as amended. The focus of this treatise is to highlight the different interpretations given to these amendments this far and highlight that if it is in fact the wish of stake holders in the Labour fraternity that Labour Brokers should continue to exist, clarification is needed by our Constitution Court on certain vital issues and as discussed in this treatise.

The purpose of this treatise is to discuss the implementation of section 17 of The Employment of Educators’ Act1 with a view to examining its shortcomings in fulfilling the requirements of fairness. Section 17 makes dismissal for transgressing any of the misconduct cases listed therein compulsory. This is so because of the use of the term “must” in its opening sentence. The Constitutional Court in Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Mines2 emphasizes the consideration of the totality of circumstances before the dismissal sanction is imposed by an employer. These include but not limited to the importance of the rule that has been breached to the employer; the basis of the employee’s challenge to the dismissal; the harm caused by the employee’s conduct; the effect of dismissal on the employee and the length of service. The treatise argues that in its current form section 17 of The Employment of Educators’ Act does not cater for the consideration of these circumstances set by the Constitutional Court. The study will also discuss the applicable dismissal legislation in education. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa guarantees everyone a right to fair labour practices.3 This right is further qualified by the Labour Relations Act4 in section 185. The Labour Relations Act also has in it Schedule 8 which is a Code of Good Practice: Dismissal. The Code endorses the concept of corrective or progressive discipline5 and the need to give due consideration to certain circumstances before dismissing an employee.6 The consideration of the circumstances listed by the Constitutional Court in Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Mines7 and the provisions of items 3(2) and 3(6) cannot be said to be well catered for under section 17 of the Employment of Educators’ Act because of the use of the term “must”. For the principle of fair labour practices to be fully accommodated under section 17 of the Employment of Educators’ Act a need to amend it is necessary. This treatise will introduce amendments that will provide for pre-dismissal arbitration as a possible approach to ensuring full compliance for fairness in dismissals that are as a result of transgressing any of the misconduct cases listed in section 17. Other amendments suggested are aimed at realigning section 17 to other child specific legislation like the Children’s Amendment Act8 and the Sexual Offences and Related Matters Amendment Act.

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.

M.Phil. / A critical task in the management of human resources is the evaluation of employees. All organizations must face up to the challenge of how to evaluate, utilize and develop the skills and abilities of their employees to ensure that organizational goals are achieved, and also to ensure that individuals gain as much satisfaction as possible from their jobs while making effective contributions. The objective of performance evaluation is the following: • To identify management potential • To recognize performance through: promotion merit awards • To identify shortcomings and to rectify it • To establish training needs • To consider transfer/redeployment In order to succeed with this important management task, it is essential for any organization to have a performance evaluation system which can guarantee an objective, factual and reliable result.

M.A. / The study is about the concept of Affirmative Action in the Employment Equity Act of South Africa, however it traces the history of Affirmative Action from the United States of America and Malaysia. These two countries are found to be leading the world in Affirmative Action. The term ‘Affirmative Action’ originated from the United States of America to prohibit unfair discrimination against certain groups of people because of non-job-related characteristics in terms of Civil Rights Act of 1960. Malaysia introduced Affirmative Action to develop education and employment opportunities of the Bumiputra. Bumiputra is one of the ethnic groups in Malaysia that have suffered unfair discrimination. Affirmative Action is a concept that became topical with attempts in South Africa to increase the participation of previously disadvantaged groups in the workplace. This concept, which is accepted constitutionally, is still controversial in its meaning and practice. It is for this reason that the study attempts to dispel misunderstandings about the concept. The study distinguishes Affirmative Action from related concepts such as equal employment opportunity and reverse discrimination. In order to develop the idea of Affirmative Action, the study also makes a distinction between descriptive definitions and normative definitions. This study opted for normative definitions in order to develop an ideal of what Affirmative Action is supposed to be. The study looks at how Affirmative Action is conceptualised in the Employment Equity Act of South Africa. Through the evaluation of the concept of Affirmative Action in the Employment Equity Act in terms of my normative definition of Affirmative Action, it was found that Affirmative Action in the Employment Equity Act complies with the normative definition of Affirmative Action. The following are my conclusion: - Affirmative Action is not similar to reverse discrimination or equal employment opportunities. - Affirmative Action in the Employment Equity Act is another form of discrimination though not unfair - It redresses injustices experienced by groups who have been disadvantaged in the past. - It eliminates unfair discrimination and develops the skills of those who did not have opportunities - It promotes equal opportunities in employment and thus it is a temporary intervention in the workplace. The findings of the study concluded that Affirmative Action is essential to the economic and skills development of the disadvantaged groups in particular and the South African society in general. / Prof. G.J. Rossouw Professor H.P.P. Lőtter

LL.M. / Please refer to full text to view abstract

Magister Legum - LLM / This paper focused on how competing interests of employers and employees are accomodated in the South African Labour Relations arena. An analysis of the legislative framework was undertaken to establish how the legislation provides for changes in workplace practices as well as the protection that it affords employees against unwanted or unilateral changes. The main focus of the research was on how the South African Courts have interpreted the legislation and how it has applied the law in cases involving the changing of terms and conditions of employment, that has come before it. / South Africa

Magister Legum - LLM / This research paper examines the different forms of employment patterns that have emerged as a result of globalisation as well as the mechanisms that have been used by the legislator to accommodate those in non-standard employment relationships. / South Africa

The thesis covers the field of labour law known as employee participation in decision-making. It deals with the examination of the extent to which the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (the Act) promotes employee participation in decision-making. Firstly, the analysis shows that employee participation in decision-making is an aspect of democracy, which is translated into industrial democracy in industrial relations. In South Africa the philosophical foundation of employee participation is supported by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996 which embodies democratic values permeating all areas of the law including labour law. Secondly, the study elucidates the jurisprudential background of employee participation in South Africa. There is evidence of the development of some principles of participation like consultation; information disclosure; and the existence of participatory forums like works councils under the LRA 28 of 1956. Thirdly, in evaluating the extent to which the LRA 66 of 1995 promotes employee participation, the following aspects are covered: the relevance and contribution of information disclosure; the effect of consultation prior to dismissal for operational requirements; the role of collective bargaining; and the contribution of workplace forums. The conclusion is reached that all the foregoing aspects of the LRA 66 of 1995 will contribute to the promotion of employee participation in decision-making. The Labour Court and the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration can also ensure that in interpreting the Act employee participation is promoted where appropriate. Finally, employers and employees will have to accept this necessary partnership for the entrenchment of employee participation in decision-making.