Thesis (LLD)--University of Stellenbosch, 2011. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The focus of this study is the rights-based normative overlap of labour and administrative law in
public employment. As the judiciary appeared to be unable to agree on a unified approach to
the application of the rights to fair labour practices and just administrative action to public
employment, it was clear that the complexity and multi-dimensional character of the debate
required analysis of existing approaches to the regulation of the public employment relationship.
The following initial research question was formulated: To what extent does (and should) the
constitutionalised rights to fair labour practices (s 23) and just administrative action (s 33)
simultaneously find application in the regulation of public employment relationships?
In answering this question, certain realities had to be acknowledged, the most important being
that the debate in question jurisprudentially revealed itself to be a jurisdictional turf-war between
the Labour and High Courts, rather than proper consideration of the relevant substantive
arguments and underlying normative considerations. This called for an additional dimension to
be added to the research question, namely consideration of the extent to which the ss 23 and
33 rights are informed by variable and possibly different normative principles and whether these
rights allow for cooperative regulation of public employment in accordance with the doctrine of
interdependent fundamental rights.
This became the primary focus of the study. In an attempt to simplify the debate, a deliberate
decision was taken to limit the scope of the normative study to South Africa with its own historic
influences, structures and constitutional considerations. The study shows that both labour and
administrative law (as constitutionally informed) share concern for equity-based principles. This
is evident from the flexible contextually informed perspectives of administrative law
reasonableness in relation to labour law substantive fairness, as well as a shared concern for
and approach to procedural fairness. Once simplified, and in the absence of any undue positive
law complexity, the public employment relationship, at both a normative and theoretical level,
furthermore shows no substantive status difference with private employment relationships. It is,
however, accepted that there are job and sector-specific contextual differences. In the absence
of substantive normative conflict between these branches of law and in the absence of a
fundamental (as opposed to contextual) difference between public and private employment,
there appears to be no reason to ignore the constitutional jurisprudential calls for hybridity,
otherwise termed the doctrine of interdependence. The idea of normatively interdependent
rights expresses the Constitution’s transformative vision (through the idea of flexible conceptual
contextualism) and recognises that human rights may overlap. This also means that where such overlap exists, rights should be interpreted and applied in a mutually supportive and cooperative
manner that allows for the full protection and promotion of those rights. In giving expression to
the interdependent normative framework of constitutional rights, these norms (absent any
substantive rights-based conflict) should then be used by the judiciary as an interpretative tool
to align specific labour law and general administrative law in the regulation of public
employment relationships. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die fokus van hierdie studie is die regsgebaseerde normatiewe oorvleueling van arbeids- en
administratiefreg in die openbare diensverhouding. Aangesien dit blyk dat die regsbank nie kon
saamstem oor ‘n eenvormige benadering tot die toepassing van die regte op billike
arbeidspraktyke en regverdige administratiewe optrede op die openbare diensverhouding nie,
het die kompleksiteit en multi-dimensionele karakter van die debat dit genoodsaak om
bestaande benaderings tot die regulering van die openbare diensverhouding te analiseer. In die
lig hiervan is die volgende aanvanklike navorsingsvraag geformuleer: Tot watter mate vind die
grondwetlik neergelegde regte tot billike arbeidspraktyke (a 23) en regmatige administratiewe
optrede (a 33) gelykmatig toepassing in die regulering van die openbare diensverhouding en tot
watter mate hoort die regte gelykmatig toepassing te vind?
In antwoord op die vraag is sekere realiteite geïdentifiseer, waarvan die belangrikste is dat die
debat in die regspraak grootliks neergekom het op ‘n jurisdiksionele magstryd tussen die
Arbeids- en Hooggeregshowe, eerder as werklike oorweging van die relevante substantiewe
argumente en onderliggende normatiewe oorwegings. Dit het die byvoeging van ’n verdere
dimensie tot die navorsingsvraag genoodsaak, naamlik oorweging van die mate waartoe die aa
23 en 33 regte deur buigsame en moontlik verskillende normatiewe beginsels beïnvloed word,
en ook of hierdie regte ruimte laat vir mederegulering van die openbare diensverhouding in
terme van die leerstuk van interafhanklikheid van fundamentele regte?
Laasgenoemde het die primêre fokus van die studie geword. In ‘n poging om die debat te
vereenvoudig, is doelbewus besluit om die strekking van die normatiewe studie te beperk tot
Suid-Afrika, met eiesoortige historiese invloede, strukture en grondwetlike oorwegings. Soos die
normatiewe studie ontvou het, wys die studie dat beide arbeids- en administratiefreg (soos
grondwetlik beïnvloed) ‘n gemeenskaplike belang in billikheids-gebaseerde beginsels openbaar.
Daar is ‘n versoenbaarheid tussen die kontekstueel beïnvloedbare en buigsame redelikheidsperspetief
van die administratiefreg, soos gesien in vergelyking met substantiewe billikheid in
die arbeidsreg. Voorts heg beide die arbeids- en administratiefreg ‘n gemeenskaplike waarde
aan, en volg beide ‘n gemeenskaplike benadering tot, prosedurele billikheid. Terselfdertyd, en
in die afwesigheid van onnodige positiefregtelike kompleksiteit, blyk daar op beide ‘n
normatiewe en teoretiese vlak geen substantiewe verskil in status tussen die openbare
diensverhouding en die privaat diensverhouding te wees nie. Dit word egter aanvaar dat daar
wel werk- en sektor-spesifieke kontekstuele verskille bestaan. In die afwesigheid van
substantiewe normatiewe konflik tussen die twee vertakkinge van die reg en in die afwesigheid van ‘n fundamentele (in vergelyking met kontekstuele) verskil tussen diensverhoudings in die
openbare en privaatsektore, blyk daar geen rede te wees om die grondwetlike jurisprudensiële
vereiste van hibriditeit, ook genoem die leerstuk van die interafhanklikheid van grondwetlike
regte, te ignoreer nie. Die idee van normatiewe interafhanklike regte gee uitdrukking aan die
Grondwet se visie van transformasie (via die idee van buigsame konsepsuele kontekstualisme)
en erken dat menseregte soms oorvleuel. Dit beteken ook dat waar so ‘n oorvleueling bestaan,
regte ïnterpreteer en toegepas moet word in ‘n wedersyds ondersteunende en samewerkende
wyse wat voorsiening maak vir die volle beskerming en bevordering van daardie regte.
Erkenning van die interafhanklike normatiewe raamwerk van grondwetlike regte hoort daartoe
te lei dat die regsbank daardie norme (in die afwesigheid van regsgebaseerde konflik) as
interpretasie-hulpmiddel gebruik om die spesifieke arbeidsreg met die algemene
administratiefreg te versoen in die regulering van die openbare diensverhouding.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:sun/oai:scholar.sun.ac.za:10019.1/6683 |
| Date | 03 1900 |
| Creators | Loots, Barbara Evelyn |
| Contributors | Garbers, C. J., Quinot, G., University of Stellenbosch. Faculty of Law. Dept. of Mercantile Law. |
| Publisher | Stellenbosch : University of Stellenbosch |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | Unknown |
| Type | Thesis |
| Format | xxiv, 510 p. |
| Rights | University of Stellenbosch |
Page generated in 0.0059 seconds