- Title
- Substantive fairness in the context of dismissal for team misconduct
- Creator
- Gcayi, Siziwe
- Subject
- South Africa -- Labour Relations Act, 1995
- Subject
- Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa Unfair labor practices -- South Africa Labor discipline -- South Africa
- Date Issued
- 2018
- Date
- 2018
- Type
- Thesis
- Type
- Masters
- Type
- LLM
- Identifier
- http://hdl.handle.net/10948/22134
- Identifier
- vital:29852
- Description
- Employees have inherent common law duties towards their employers. These duties include: obedience, care, competency and good faith.1 An employee has a duty to act in good faith towards the employer. For purposes of this treatise, focus will be on competency and good faith. Section 188(1) of the Labour Relations Act,2 provides three grounds on which dismissal can be considered to be fair. These grounds are: misconduct, capacity and an employer’s operational requirements. For purposes of this research paper, focus will be on misconduct. Capacity and employer’s operational requirements will not be discussed. For purposes of the present discussion misconduct can be divided into two broad categories namely, individual misconduct and group misconduct. Individual misconduct refers to transgression by a single employee who by his or her conduct violates the company policy or valid rule in the workplace. When the employer contemplates dismissing the employee for misconduct, it has to prove on the balance of probabilities that the employee concerned is guilty of misconduct and that the misconduct concerned justified a dismissal in the sense that it had irretrievably destroyed the requisite trust element in the employment relationship. Group misconduct refers to transgression that has been committed by group of employees. The following forms part of what can be categorised as falling within group misconduct: collective guilt, derivative misconduct, common purpose and team misconduct. Ideally the manner in which group misconduct is dealt with should be different from the way individual misconduct is handled. Individual misconduct refers to a single employee or misconduct of more than one employee who can be isolated and charged/handled as individuals, whereas group misconduct refers to a number of employees, whose conduct has offended the rules of the employer. In respect of group misconduct, the employer does not have to prove individual liability for each of the 1 Module 8 CCMA candidate commissioner notes. 2 66 of 1995. affected employees. An employer may after fulfilling certain requirements penalize them as a group.
- Format
- ii, 55 leaves
- Format
- Publisher
- Nelson Mandela University
- Publisher
- Faculty of Law
- Language
- English
- Rights
- Nelson Mandela University
- Hits: 911
- Visitors: 1141
- Downloads: 612
Collections
NMU Department of Mercantile Law
| Thumbnail | File | Description | Size | Format | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| View Details Download | SOURCE1 | Substantive fairness in the context of dismissal for team misconduct | 840 KB | Adobe Acrobat PDF | View Details Download |