Dismissal due to pregnancy
- Authors: Ledwaba, Lesetsa Joel
- Date: 2006
- Subjects: Sex discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Pregnant women -- Employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10190 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/433 , Sex discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Pregnant women -- Employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: Previously, our workplaces were characterised by serious hardships emanating from labour laws which did not always cater for all areas of the employment relationship. South African female employees were without a clear legitimate remedial right precluding any severe violation and infringement to their fundamental rights resulting from their pregnancy; a task they did not opt for in the first place, but was instead, naturally imposed on them as a result of their gender category. Undoubtedly, many female employees were victims of unfair discrimination. The legislature therefore saw it fit to democratise the workplace by making rapid statutory interventions. As a result, a number of significant changes in various spheres of our labour laws were brought in. Amongst the greatly notable valuable changes was the introduction of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998. This piece of legislation has generally reformed our industrial society by bringing in the elimination of unfair discrimination and thereby enhancing the principle of equity in the workplace. The act has further touched a place within hearts of female employees for fear of discrimination as a result of their pregnancy status or any reasons related to their pregnancy. The act further codified Industrial Court decisions that were already established under the discrimination law jurisprudence from the Labour Relations Act 28 of 1956. The application of the provisions of the Act has made the employment relationship no longer to be a comfort zone for employers. These general changes to the law also impact on the dismissal law regime. The purpose of this treatise is to give an overview of the applicable legislation and contributions made by the Labour Courts in developing pregnancy dismissal and discrimination law. The Labour Courts have handed down few judgements that have helped in clarifying the provisions of both the current Labour Relations Act and the Employment Equity Act around the topic. One should hasten to say that this has never been a smooth process by the courts. It is further shown in this treatise that some of the court decisions were not well accepted in the light of other important considerations, such as the equality provisions of the Constitution. For the purpose of effectively dealing with this topic, this treatise contains a discussion of the historical context of discrimination law in the form of common-law position, and the discrimination law before the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. It then endeavours to identify the legislative provision of the Act when it comes to discrimination law provisions. At the same time the important court decisions that were made are identified and examined.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2006
- Authors: Ledwaba, Lesetsa Joel
- Date: 2006
- Subjects: Sex discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Pregnant women -- Employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10190 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/433 , Sex discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Pregnant women -- Employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: Previously, our workplaces were characterised by serious hardships emanating from labour laws which did not always cater for all areas of the employment relationship. South African female employees were without a clear legitimate remedial right precluding any severe violation and infringement to their fundamental rights resulting from their pregnancy; a task they did not opt for in the first place, but was instead, naturally imposed on them as a result of their gender category. Undoubtedly, many female employees were victims of unfair discrimination. The legislature therefore saw it fit to democratise the workplace by making rapid statutory interventions. As a result, a number of significant changes in various spheres of our labour laws were brought in. Amongst the greatly notable valuable changes was the introduction of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998. This piece of legislation has generally reformed our industrial society by bringing in the elimination of unfair discrimination and thereby enhancing the principle of equity in the workplace. The act has further touched a place within hearts of female employees for fear of discrimination as a result of their pregnancy status or any reasons related to their pregnancy. The act further codified Industrial Court decisions that were already established under the discrimination law jurisprudence from the Labour Relations Act 28 of 1956. The application of the provisions of the Act has made the employment relationship no longer to be a comfort zone for employers. These general changes to the law also impact on the dismissal law regime. The purpose of this treatise is to give an overview of the applicable legislation and contributions made by the Labour Courts in developing pregnancy dismissal and discrimination law. The Labour Courts have handed down few judgements that have helped in clarifying the provisions of both the current Labour Relations Act and the Employment Equity Act around the topic. One should hasten to say that this has never been a smooth process by the courts. It is further shown in this treatise that some of the court decisions were not well accepted in the light of other important considerations, such as the equality provisions of the Constitution. For the purpose of effectively dealing with this topic, this treatise contains a discussion of the historical context of discrimination law in the form of common-law position, and the discrimination law before the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. It then endeavours to identify the legislative provision of the Act when it comes to discrimination law provisions. At the same time the important court decisions that were made are identified and examined.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2006
Non-renewal of a fixed-term employment contract
- Authors: Timothy, Lester Clement
- Date: 2006
- Subjects: Fixed-term labor contracts -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10209 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/431 , Fixed-term labor contracts -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: In terms of the common law contract of employment an employee who is a party to a fixed term contract, unlike an indefinite period contract, cannot be dismissed. The contract terminates upon an agreed or ascertainable date determined by the parties and the conclusion of the contract. Section 186(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act 1995, however, defines the failure to renew a fixed term contract on the same or similar terms where the employee reasonably expected the contract to be renewed, as a dismissal. In this treatise the scope and content of this provision is considered with reference to relevant case law. The factors and considerations that establish a reasonable expectation are highlighted and considered. The question as to whether or not this provision also provides for the situation where an employee expects indefinite employment is also considered and critically discussed. The author concludes that the provision should not be interpreted in such a manner that an expectation of permanent employment is created.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2006
- Authors: Timothy, Lester Clement
- Date: 2006
- Subjects: Fixed-term labor contracts -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10209 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/431 , Fixed-term labor contracts -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: In terms of the common law contract of employment an employee who is a party to a fixed term contract, unlike an indefinite period contract, cannot be dismissed. The contract terminates upon an agreed or ascertainable date determined by the parties and the conclusion of the contract. Section 186(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act 1995, however, defines the failure to renew a fixed term contract on the same or similar terms where the employee reasonably expected the contract to be renewed, as a dismissal. In this treatise the scope and content of this provision is considered with reference to relevant case law. The factors and considerations that establish a reasonable expectation are highlighted and considered. The question as to whether or not this provision also provides for the situation where an employee expects indefinite employment is also considered and critically discussed. The author concludes that the provision should not be interpreted in such a manner that an expectation of permanent employment is created.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2006
The defence of inherent requirements of the job in unfair discrimination cases
- Authors: Kasika, Richard
- Date: 2006
- Subjects: Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Defense (Civil procedure) -- South Africa , Job analysis
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10236 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/450 , Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Defense (Civil procedure) -- South Africa , Job analysis
- Description: The discrimination jurisprudence in South Africa has developed over the previous decade since the promulgation of the interim and final Constitutions. The Employment Equity Act of 1998 also gave impetus to the development of equality jurisprudence with reference to the workplace. In terms of both the Constitution and the Employment Equity Act, unfair discrimination is forbidden. Both the Constitution and Employment Equity Act list specific grounds on which discrimination would be regarded as unfair. Although discrimination on any of the listed grounds would be regarded as automatically unfair, there is realisation that this cannot be an absolute position. The Employment Equity Act makes provision that employers be able to justify discrimination even on the listed grounds where there are justifiable reasons. In terms of the EEA, it is not unfair discrimination to differentiate between employees on the basis of an inherent requirement of the particular job. It is this defence that is considered in the present treatise. The inherent requirements of the job as a defence in unfair discrimination cases is one, which needs to be carefully considered it in fact requires a clear understanding of what constitutes an inherent requirement. It is equally important to understand that although in one instance it may be justifiable to exclude certain employees on the basis of an inherent requirement of the job, a generalisation may give an employer difficulties under certain circumstances. An employer who is faced with a prospective employee who suffers from a particular illness that would make it impossible to do the job, could raise the defence of an inherent requirement of the job. However, the fact that a particular employee has the same illness as the previous one not employed does not give an employer an automatic right to exclude all prospective employees who suffer from the same illness without having had consideration of their circumstances as well as those of their illnesses. The defence of inherent requirements of the job is therefore valid only where the essence of the business would be undermined by employing or not employing people with certain attributes required or not required to do the job.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2006
- Authors: Kasika, Richard
- Date: 2006
- Subjects: Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Defense (Civil procedure) -- South Africa , Job analysis
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10236 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/450 , Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Defense (Civil procedure) -- South Africa , Job analysis
- Description: The discrimination jurisprudence in South Africa has developed over the previous decade since the promulgation of the interim and final Constitutions. The Employment Equity Act of 1998 also gave impetus to the development of equality jurisprudence with reference to the workplace. In terms of both the Constitution and the Employment Equity Act, unfair discrimination is forbidden. Both the Constitution and Employment Equity Act list specific grounds on which discrimination would be regarded as unfair. Although discrimination on any of the listed grounds would be regarded as automatically unfair, there is realisation that this cannot be an absolute position. The Employment Equity Act makes provision that employers be able to justify discrimination even on the listed grounds where there are justifiable reasons. In terms of the EEA, it is not unfair discrimination to differentiate between employees on the basis of an inherent requirement of the particular job. It is this defence that is considered in the present treatise. The inherent requirements of the job as a defence in unfair discrimination cases is one, which needs to be carefully considered it in fact requires a clear understanding of what constitutes an inherent requirement. It is equally important to understand that although in one instance it may be justifiable to exclude certain employees on the basis of an inherent requirement of the job, a generalisation may give an employer difficulties under certain circumstances. An employer who is faced with a prospective employee who suffers from a particular illness that would make it impossible to do the job, could raise the defence of an inherent requirement of the job. However, the fact that a particular employee has the same illness as the previous one not employed does not give an employer an automatic right to exclude all prospective employees who suffer from the same illness without having had consideration of their circumstances as well as those of their illnesses. The defence of inherent requirements of the job is therefore valid only where the essence of the business would be undermined by employing or not employing people with certain attributes required or not required to do the job.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2006
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »