Substantive fairness in the context of dismissal for team misconduct
- Authors: Gcayi, Siziwe
- Date: 2018
- Subjects: South Africa -- Labour Relations Act, 1995 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa Unfair labor practices -- South Africa Labor discipline -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/22134 , 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.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2018
- Authors: Gcayi, Siziwe
- Date: 2018
- Subjects: South Africa -- Labour Relations Act, 1995 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa Unfair labor practices -- South Africa Labor discipline -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/22134 , 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.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2018
Impacts of African elephant feeding on white rhinoceros foraging opportunities
- Authors: Prinsloo, Dominique
- Date: 2017
- Subjects: Herbivores -- Ecology -- South Africa , Grassland ecology -- South Africa Animal-plant relationships -- South Africa Ecology
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MSc
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/13768 , vital:27306
- Description: In this study, I investigated the interaction between two megaherbivores, the African elephant and white rhinoceros, that has the potential to impact grazing lawns of which white rhino are the creators and maintainers and elephants are potentially the modifiers. I hypothesized that as elephants browse, they discard a variety of coarse woody debris onto the ground; should this woody debris (of varying amounts and sizes) fall onto grazing lawns, white rhino either move them, consume grass around the woody debris or abandon the lawn entirely. If high levels of woody debris are deposited here, grazing by white rhino is likely to be prevented, at which time I predicted that mesoherbivores would have a competitive advantage in accessing forage that white rhino cannot. I examined the mechanistic links between different levels of elephant-deposited woody debris and grass response at a point scale and feeding patch spatial scale of grazing lawns in an African savanna. In addition, I assessed the response of mesoherbivores in terms of vigilance behaviour with increasing levels of predation risk posed by increasing levels of woody debris. I present the first evidence of an indirect effect of elephant on white rhino foraging behaviour. I demonstrate how increasing levels of woody debris lead to a decreasing probability of foraging by white rhino. I also demonstrate how the probability of foraging by mesoherbivores increases as the amount of forage increases. However, since this study took place during a severe drought where resources are extremely limited, I was unable to properly separate the effects of elephant-deposited woody debris from the severe lack of rainfall on grass response and subsequently herbivore foraging behaviour. Due possibly to the drought, mesoherbivores responded less or not at all to risk factors such as woody debris therefore woody debris was not a predictor of vigilance behaviour in my study. This study contributes to our understanding of how the impacts of elephants, as ecosystem engineers, have cascading effects on savanna ecosystems. My study showed that elephant impact mediates the foraging behaviour of white rhino during a drought. However, under average rainfall periods, my original hypothesized effect of the indirect impacts of elephants on white rhino foraging and grazing lawn dynamics could still hold. This key hypothesis that I was unable to test under ‘normal’ conditions due to the drought is still valid and functionally important for understanding the ecosystem processes driving grazing lawn formation, persistence and composition in African savannas where elephants and white rhinos coexist.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2017
- Authors: Prinsloo, Dominique
- Date: 2017
- Subjects: Herbivores -- Ecology -- South Africa , Grassland ecology -- South Africa Animal-plant relationships -- South Africa Ecology
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MSc
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/13768 , vital:27306
- Description: In this study, I investigated the interaction between two megaherbivores, the African elephant and white rhinoceros, that has the potential to impact grazing lawns of which white rhino are the creators and maintainers and elephants are potentially the modifiers. I hypothesized that as elephants browse, they discard a variety of coarse woody debris onto the ground; should this woody debris (of varying amounts and sizes) fall onto grazing lawns, white rhino either move them, consume grass around the woody debris or abandon the lawn entirely. If high levels of woody debris are deposited here, grazing by white rhino is likely to be prevented, at which time I predicted that mesoherbivores would have a competitive advantage in accessing forage that white rhino cannot. I examined the mechanistic links between different levels of elephant-deposited woody debris and grass response at a point scale and feeding patch spatial scale of grazing lawns in an African savanna. In addition, I assessed the response of mesoherbivores in terms of vigilance behaviour with increasing levels of predation risk posed by increasing levels of woody debris. I present the first evidence of an indirect effect of elephant on white rhino foraging behaviour. I demonstrate how increasing levels of woody debris lead to a decreasing probability of foraging by white rhino. I also demonstrate how the probability of foraging by mesoherbivores increases as the amount of forage increases. However, since this study took place during a severe drought where resources are extremely limited, I was unable to properly separate the effects of elephant-deposited woody debris from the severe lack of rainfall on grass response and subsequently herbivore foraging behaviour. Due possibly to the drought, mesoherbivores responded less or not at all to risk factors such as woody debris therefore woody debris was not a predictor of vigilance behaviour in my study. This study contributes to our understanding of how the impacts of elephants, as ecosystem engineers, have cascading effects on savanna ecosystems. My study showed that elephant impact mediates the foraging behaviour of white rhino during a drought. However, under average rainfall periods, my original hypothesized effect of the indirect impacts of elephants on white rhino foraging and grazing lawn dynamics could still hold. This key hypothesis that I was unable to test under ‘normal’ conditions due to the drought is still valid and functionally important for understanding the ecosystem processes driving grazing lawn formation, persistence and composition in African savannas where elephants and white rhinos coexist.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2017
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »