This research will focus on the influence of legislation (as indicated in this research) on the investment decision in residential income-producing property. Assumptions, as recorded in the hypothesis of this study, indicate that the legislation had a changing influence on the investment decision in residential income-producing property in comparison to the time period prior to the promulgation of the legislation. The research methodology will be based on a comparative analysis of the current legislation and the proposed Draft Amendment Bill. This analysis will be tested by means of a case study analysis incorporating a phenomenological study based on written data. The problems, sub-problems and hypothesis will be addressed and tested in this research in conjunction with the prescribed research methodology. This research is concluded by means of a synopsis and recommendations.

The Labour Relations Act contains a definition of a strike which reads as follows: “’strike’ means the partial or complete concerted refusal to work, or the retardation or obstruction of work, by persons who are or have been employed by the same employer or by different employers, for the purpose of remedying a grievance or resolving a dispute in respect of any matter of mutual interest between employer and employee, and every reference to ‘work’ in this definition includes overtime work, whether it is voluntary or compulsory.” The Labour Relations Act offers strikers special protection against dismissal if they conform with the Act and its provisions. Hence the distinction between those strikes and protest action in compliance with the Act, namely ‘protected’ strikes and protest action, and those strikes and protest action in violation of the Act, namely, ‘unprotected’ strikes and protest action. Participation in an unprotected strike is one form of misbehaviour. The Labour Relations Act expressly prohibits the dismissal of employees engaged in a lawful strike. Employees engaged in strike action contrary to the provisions of the Labour Relations Act may be dismissed since their strike action is deemed to be a form of misconduct. The dismissal of striking employees must be both substantially and procedurally fair.

The Department of Education, as part of the public sector, employs educators in terms of the Employment of Educators Act (EEA),1 whereas the rest of the public servants are employed in terms of the Public Service Act (PSA). If an educator is absent for more than 14 consecutive days without the permission of the employer, the educator is deemed to be discharged according to section 14(1)(a). With regard to the rest of the public sector, a similar provision is put in place, where section 17(5)(a) provides for the discharge of a public officer who is absent from his / her duties without the permission of the Head of Department for a calendar month (31 days). Sometimes long absent periods are caused by personal circumstances of the employee which are unforeseen. If the employee reports for duty after the dismissal, section 14(2) of the EEA provides that, the employee may be reinstated by the employer on good cause shown, after a post-dismissal hearing. If an employee in the public sector is discharged based on these deeming provisions, the employment is terminated by the operation of the law and there is no dismissal. This means that the employer is not responsible for the termination, meaning than there exists no option to review the dismissal. The supreme law of the Republic of South Africa (RSA) is the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (the Constitution).5 The question at hand is whether the deeming provision of section 14 of the EEA6 is constitutional. The Labour Relations Act (LRA) goes further by stipulating that every person has the right not to be unfairly dismissed, and not to be subjected to unfair labour practice.7 Section 23 of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right to fair labour practices. Furthermore, section 33 of the Constitution provides for fair administrative action. The question is whether these provisions, dealing with the dismissal of educators, limit the employee’s constitutional right to a fair labour practice.

Introduction: Due to the increase in healthcare costs, generic medicines have been adopted for used in both developed and developing countries. When a generic or ‘multisource interchangeable medicine’ is to be registered, studies that prove that the generic is equivalent to the Innovator Product (IP) are used. The generic medicine is required to prove that it will mirror the IP in terms of safety, quality and efficacy and, in South Africa, the Medicines Control Council (MCC) ensures that generic medicines meet these requirements. Generic medicines may be registered using bioequivalence data obtained from comparison with a domestic reference product (usually the local innovator product) or in certain cases, a foreign reference product (FRP). The bioequivalence data can either be from in vivo or in vitro studies. The MCC guidelines require that for modified release preparations, in vivo bioequivalence studies are done for approval of registration; the exception being if a proportionally higher dose has already been registered. No information is currently given to prescribers and dispensers or to the public about whether a generic product was registered against a foreign or domestic reference product. Aims and Objectives: 1.) To determine the number of generic medicines in a predetermined sample registered using a FRP as comparator and to document the transparency of pharmaceutical companies when approached to disclose information regarding the registration of these products. 2.) To describe and document the use of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (Act 2 of 2000) [PAIA] from the perspective of a ‘layperson’ in the context of medicines’ regulation, in both private and public bodies. Methods: 20 modified release and Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) class IV products were selected from the ‘generics dictionary’ – a commercial publication – and letters were sent to the manufacturers of the products requesting information about the tests done to prove equivalence and whether they were performed against a domestic or foreign reference product. The same information was also requested from the MCC. The requests were all made using the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA). Results: Nine companies were represented by the 20 products chosen. Information was obtained about thirteen products. Ten of these products were registered using FRPs. Four products were registered based only on comparative dissolution studies. Four companies provided the requested information, two companies responded by refusing the requests and three did not respond at all. The MCC refused the request for information even after an internal appeal was lodged. Conclusions: The Promotion of Access to information Act was unsuccessful in obtaining information from the public body, and partly successful in obtaining it from the private bodies. While the title of the Act seems to indicate that the Act can be used to obtain information as such, it only provides for access to specified records. The MCC and the pharmaceutical companies involved in the study were under no obligation to provide the information as the request had not complied with PAIA requirements. The use of FRPs for registration is a reality in the pharmaceutical industry in South Africa. Neither the public nor healthcare professionals who prescribe medicines or who are involved in dispensing generic medicines as substitutes are aware of whether or not a FRP has been used to register a generic. Interchangeability cannot necessarily be guaranteed if the reference product was not proven equivalent to the local innovator product. It is debatable as to whether or not this information would be of any particular benefit to members of the public. Prescribers may choose to write ‘no substitution’ on their prescriptions if they were unconvinced that an FRP is acceptable. This could have consequences for healthcare costs. Dispensers are the most vulnerable in South Africa as they are obliged by law to substitute generic medicines when innovator medicines have been prescribed. Dispensers’ views on the acceptability of the use of FRPs can be seen as irrelevant. In the end, as this study demonstrates, the only option in the present situation is to rely entirely on the MCC’s rigour in assessing applications for registration of generic medicines.

This thesis analyses the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 and its application in labour law in South Africa. After an initial examination of the general concepts with regards to employment equity and current international conventions regarding employment equity, the study will move on to examine employment equity as it stands in the law today. In examining the current law regarding employment equity, a brief historical background will be offered in order to show the legacy of apartheid: the immense disparity between the different categories of South African people in the modern era. By using this background and analysing the relevant provisions of the Constitution, it will be argued that there is a very real need for employment equity measures to bring about a true sense of equality in South Africa and that such measures are fully endorsed by the Constitution. After it has been established that affirmative action is an important tool in the creation of an equal South Africa, the measures put in place to help create this equal South Africa will be critically analysed. This critical analysis will point out certain weaknesses in the current affirmative action system. Following this critical analysis of the South African employment equity law, the employment equity systems used in Brazil, Canada and Malaysia will be examined in detail. The purpose of this analysis will be to find the strengths and weaknesses and successes and failures of these foreign systems. This will be done in order to highlight those areas of the foreign systems that can be implemented into South African law in order to make the South African employment equity system stronger. The weaknesses of those systems will also be highlighted in order to learn valuable lessons from other system’s failures so that South Africa does not make the same mistakes. The final part of this thesis will be in depth discussions and the proposal of solutions to the weaknesses of the South African employment equity system that have been highlighted throughout the thesis. These proposals will be put forward in order to ensure the most efficient and effective employment equity system in South Africa. There will also be a reassessment of the most valuable lessons learned from the foreign systems that would be easily implemented into or avoided by the South African system in order to ensure an effective employment equity system. The purpose, therefore, of this thesis is to critically analyse employment equity in South Africa. A further purpose will be to propose certain amendments and changes to the current system to ensure the Employment Equity Act is reflective of the needs of the people South Africa.

During the apartheid era in South Africa there was an unequivocal commitment to white supremacy, segregation and inequality. Discrimination but not on the basis of race was entrenched by the pre-democratic government. The 1980‟s saw the first steps towards reversing such practices through various measures, in the form of formal equality. Formal equality holds that the state must be act neutrally in relation to its employees and must favour no one above another. It assumes that all people are equal and that inequality can be eradicated simply by treating all people in the same way. Formal equality is therefore blind to structural inequality. Substantive equality in contrast to formal equality holds the value that equality is not simply a matter of likeness, that those who are different should be treated differently. The very essence of equality is to make distinction between groups and individual in order to accommodate their different needs and interests. It considers discrimination against groups which have been historically advantaged to be qualitatively aimed at remedying that disadvantage. The Constitution Act 108 of 1996 confers the right to equal protection and benefit of the law and the right to non discrimination. Prohibition of unfair discrimination in itself is insufficient to achieve true equality in a historically oppressed society. Hard affirmative action measures are required, the Constitution further explicitly endorses such restitutionary measures. Affirmative action is a systematic, planned process whereby the effects of colonialism and racial discrimination are being reversed in all areas if life. It is designed to achieve equal employment opportunities. In order to achieve this goal the barriers of the workplace which restrict employment and progressive opportunities have to be systematically eliminated through proactive programmes. Affirmative action is a delicate instrument of social engineering which must be used with caution. The Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 gives effect to the constitutional provisions and to regulate affirmative action measures in employment. The Employment Equity Act spells out the beneficiaries, who should do the protection, and advancement and what may happen to employers if they fail to comply in the view of the Director-General of the Labour. However the explicit constitutional and legislative endorsement of affirmative action comes with its controversy and legal challenges and it has been left to the courts to resolve tension on the one hand and to ensure equal treatment on the other. / Abstract

Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) are crucial to the operation and development of the Internet. However, through the performance of their basic functions, they faced the great risk of civil and criminal liability for unlawful content posted by third parties. As this risk threatened the potential of the Internet, various jurisdictions opted to promulgate legislation that granted ISP’s safe harbours from liability. The South African (RSA) response is Chapter XI of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act (ECTA). The protection it provides is however not absolute. It is limited to ISP’s that are members of an Industry Representative Body (IRB) and those ISP’s must perform particular functions in relation to third party content in a certain manner to obtain limited liability. Due to the ECTA’s limited application and a lack of authority, the question is raised as to what is the liability of ISP’s for unlawful content posted by third parties? This dissertation pays particular attention to ISP liability for third party defamatory statements, hate speech, and obscene and indecent material. The role and characteristics of ISP’s in the functioning of the Internet is described. It is determined that a wide legal definition would be required to encompass the many roles they perform. The definition provided by the ECTA is wide and many different types of ISP can fall underneath it. This may have unintended consequences as entities may receive protection that the legislature did not intend. The appropriate laws in the United States of America (USA) and the United Kingdom are surveyed and suggestions as to the extent of ISP liability in circumstances where the ECTA does not apply are made. It is established that their position is uncertain due to difficulties in applying the law to the Internet. This could result in the law being applied incorrectly and ISP’s erroneously found liable. The ECTA’s threshold requirements limit the availability of the safe harbor provisions to ISP’s that are members of a recognised IRB. The IRB must comply with an extensive set of requirements to obtain recognition. The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that only responsible ISP’s obtain the protection provided by the act. After an examination of these requirements, their necessity is questioned as their purpose appears to be contrary to the logic of the safe harbours provided by the ECTA. The safe harbours are analysed and comparisons made to similar legislation that exists in the USA and the European Union (EU). It was established that the ECTA is a hybrid of the USA and EU legislation, and to a certain extent improves on them. It was suggested that the extent of ISP liability in relation to certain unlawful content is clearer under the ECTA. However, exceptions may exist in relation to hate speech and obscene and indecent content as a result of legislation that does not properly take the technology of the Internet into account. It was recommended that certain action be taken to correct this position to prevent any negative effects on the Internet industry and conflict with the objectives of the ECTA. The provision of limited liability contained in the ECTA is balanced with a notice and takedown procedure, which provides relief to victims of unlawful content. This procedure is analysed and it appears to be effective in providing relief. However, through an examination of concerns raised in relation to this type of procedure as it exists in the USA and the EU, it is suggested that certain flaws exist. The take-down procedure negatively effects the freedom of expression and the third party’s rights to due process. Further, the threshold requirements result in not all the users of the Internet being provided with the same remedies. It is recommended that certain action be taken to correct these flaws. The solution provided by the ECTA should be favoured over the uncertainty that existed before it promulgation. It may be necessary to correct particular flaws that exist. Certain recommendations are suggested in this regard and the concluding chapter.

Common law does recognise the concept of dismissal based on operational requirements. It recognises dismissals that are based on breach of expressed or implied terms of contract of employment. The concept of operational requirements has its roots in the Labour Relations Act 28 of 1956. This Act recognised termination of employment of a number of employees due to ability, capacity, productivity, conduct and operational requirements and needs of undertaking industry trade or occupation of the employer as legitimate. Under the 1956 LRA, employers were allowed to dismiss employees if employees refused to accept the proposed change to conditions of employment. The dismissal is called lock-out dismissal. This kind of dismissal entitled employers to dismiss employees on condition that the dismissal was temporary and the workers would be re-employed when they agree to the demands of the employer. After the contract of employment was terminated between the employer and employees, the employer was allowed to implement the changes using scab labour. The 1995 Labour Relations Act introduced section 187(1)(c) that was intended to re-enforce the abolishing of the lock-out dismissal. This section strictly forbids the dismissal of employees in order to compel them to accept demands of the employer in matters of mutual interest. Such dismissals are regarded as automatically unfair. In terms of section 64(4) of the 1995 LRA employers are not permitted to unilaterally effect changes to employees’ terms and conditions of employment. They are required to seek and obtain consent of the affected employees. If employees refuse to accept the proposed changes, the employer can use lock-out as defence. Firstly, the employer can initiate lock-out until employees accede to its demand. Secondly, the employer can lock-out employees in response to the notice of strike or strike of the employees. The employer can use scab labour during this lock-out period. Unlike the lock-out dismissal, lock-out under the 1995 LRA does not include termination of contract of employment. iv In contrast, employers are allowed to dismiss employees who refuse to agree to change to their terms and conditions of employment on the ground of operational requirements provided a fair procedure is followed. This reason for dismissal is not viewed by the courts as a dismissal to induce employees to accept the demand of the employer. The question that this study seeks to examine is the relationship between automatic unfair dismissal in terms of section 187(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act and dismissal for operational requirements. A dispute between the employer and employees regarding change to terms and conditions of employment is a mutual interest dispute; and it therefore falls under collective bargaining. The same dispute can easily fall to rights dispute, because the reason for the proposed change to the production system and demand to the pursuit of improved efficiency and better achievement of profit objective related to operational requirement. There is obvious overlap between operational requirements and wage work bargaining. In Schoeman v Samsung Electronics, the court held that the employer is entitled to run its business in a prosperous way and this may entail affecting changes to terms and conditions of employment when the market forces demand so. In Mwasa v Independent Newspapers, the court held that change to terms and conditions of service of an employee can be proposed as a way to avoid retrenchment; dismissal of employees for refusing to accept the change is not covered by section 187(1)(c). In Fry’s Metals v Numsa, the court has rejected the notion that there is tension between section 187(1)(c) and section 188(1)(a)(ii). The court held that section 186(1) refers to dismissal or termination of workforce with the intention to end the employment contract and replacing the workforce with employees that are prepared to accept terms and conditions of employment that suit the employer’s operational requirements. The court argued further that the meaning of dismissal should be a v starting point when one wants to dispute the two sections. On the other hand, section 187(1)(c) was effected with a certain purpose, which is to prohibit the employer from dismissing employees in order to compel them to accept its demand in dispute of mutual interest. The court held that the dismissal in this case was final. The employer dismissed its employees because it did not need them anymore. This dismissal is in accordance with section 186(1). The court rejected that operational requirements is confirmed to saving business from bankruptcy. The court argued that the principle includes measures calculated to increase efficiency and profitability. The employer can dismiss and make more profit.

Bibliography: pages 133-135. / There is an administrative law relationship between the taxpayer and the Commissioner for Inland Revenue, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') The basis of this relationship is that the Commissioner is required to collect tax and the taxpayer is required to pay the tax. In exercising his powers under the Income Tax Act No. 58 of 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Commissioner has been conferred with discretionary powers. In this thesis, this administrative law relationship is examined with specific reference to the means of regulating the exercise by the Commissioner of his discretionary powers. There are a number of ways in which the discretionary powers of the Commissioner may be regulated. Generally discretion may be regulated by 'rule based administrative action' (1). This means that discretionary power is exercised subject to internal rules which state how discretionary power must be exercised. Another method of regulating the exercise of discretionary power is subsumed under the category of 'adjudicative techniques of decision' (2). The essence of the latter category is that the affected person participates in the decision which affects him. The exercise of discretionary power may be regulated furthermore if the Minister who has responsibility for the Department is required to be responsible for and account publicly for the actions of his subordinate. In this thesis, examples of rule based administrative action and adjudicative techniques of decision are examined.

The effective management of a strike is generally a challenging phenomenon which impacts on employers, employees and the general public. The main purpose of this study was to analyse the legal implications of employees’ participation in an unprotected strike. The study also explored requirements for a strike to be protected in compliance with the prescribed legislation. From the literary review, cases and legislation, it became clear that compliance plays a key role when a consideration is taken by employees to take part in a strike during dispute resolution. In analysing the legal consequences for participating in an unprotected strike, a finding was made that employers in the end have an upper hand in that when all due processes and procedures are followed, they are empowered to dismiss employees. Legislation and international standards form the cornerstone upon which dispute resolution mechanisms and the rights of employers and employees are derived from. / Mercantile Law / LL.M. (Labour law)