Constructive dismissal in labour law
- Authors: Van Loggerenberg, Johannes Jurgens
- Date: 2003
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:11054 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/301 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: The history of constructive dismissals in South Africa imitated from the English law in 1986, when an employee successfully challenged the employer on this particular concept after an incident relating a forced resignation. From the literature it is clear that constructive dismissal, as we know it today, originated from our English counterparts. Being a relatively new concept, the South African labour laws caught on at a rapid pace. The leading case on which the South African authors leaned towards was the English case of Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough). In South Africa constructive dismissals were given statutory force in unfair dismissal law and is defined as the coerced or forced termination of a contract of employment resultant in from the conduct of the employer. There are many forms in which constructive dismissals would postulate that could justify an employee to lay claim to constructive dismissal. Examples thereof are the amendment of the contract of employment, rude language and sexual harassment. It is eminent that certain elements should be present before an employee would have reasonable prospects of succeeding with such a claim. Constructive dismissal comes into the equation when an employer behaves in such a manner that eventually and ultimately leads to the employee, being the receiving party, in the employment relationship, to terminate the employment contract. This termination must be the direct result of the conduct of the employer that irreparably frustrated the relationship and made it impossible for the employee to remain in the service of the employer in question. It appears that the courts have taken a firm stance on coerced or forced resignation, in its various forms tantamount to breach of contact, that any sufficiently unreasonable conduct by an employer may justify that the employee to terminate services and lay claim to the fact that he had been constructively dismissed. It needs to be mentioned that the fact that the mere fact that the employer acted in an unreasonable manner would not suffice and it is up to the employee to prove how the conduct of the employer justified the employee to leave and claim that the employer’s conduct resulted in a material or fundamental beach of the employment contract. In dealing with the contingency of the concept of constructive dismissals it has been expressly provided for in numerous systems of labour law. As is seen herein, a constructive dismissal consists in the termination of the employment contract by reason of the employee’s rather than the employer’s own immediate act. The act of the employee is precipitated by earlier conduct on the part of the employer, which conduct may or may not be justified. Various authors and academics endeavoured to defined constructive dismissal and all had the same or at least some of the elements present, to justify constructive dismissal. The most glaring element being the termination of employment as a result of the any conduct that is tantamount to a breach going to the root of the relationship by the employer, that frustrated the relationship between the employer and the employee and rendered it irreparable. The employee resigns or repudiates the employment contract as a result of the employer normally not leaving the employee any other option but to resign. This can also be termed as coerced or forced resignations and are commonly better known as “constructive dismissal”. The employee is deemed to have been dismissed, even though it is the employee who terminated the employment contract. The most important element to mention is the employee terminated the employment contract, ie resigned yet this is regarded as a dismissal, it is however for the employee to first lay a claim at the proper authority and the employee must prove his / her allegation before it can be a constructive dismissal. As will become clear, that the onus of proof is on the employee to show that the termination of employment resulted from the conduct of the employer. Equally true as in all cases of constructive dismissal, including cases of sexual harassment, being a ground for constructive dismissal, the employee must prove that to remain in service would have been unbearable and intolerable. Sexual harassment is one of the most difficult forms of constructive dismissals, in many cases there are no witnesses and the employee either “suffers in silence or opt to place her dignity at stake to prove her case. It seems as though the test is to determine if the employer’s conduct evinced a deliberate and oppressive intention to have the employment terminated and left the employee with only one option that of resignation to protect her interests. Employees have a right to seek statutory relief and needs to be protected. If a coerced or forced resignation had taken place irrespective whether the employee resigned or not. It is against this back drop that constructive dismissals was given legality and are now recognized as one of the four forms of dismissals in terms of the Act.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2003
Procedural fairness in unprotected strike dismissals
- Authors: Nel, Werner
- Date: 2003
- Subjects: Strikes and lockouts -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , South Africa. Labour Relations Act -- 1995
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:11049 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/314 , Strikes and lockouts -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , South Africa. Labour Relations Act -- 1995
- Description: 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.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2003
The law relating to retrenchment
- Authors: Van Staden, Leon
- Date: 2003
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Downsizing of organizations -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Dispute resolution (Law) -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:11055 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/304 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Downsizing of organizations -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Dispute resolution (Law) -- South Africa
- Description: Retrenchment, as a form of dismissal, is regulated by section 189 and 189A of the Labour Relations Act 1995. In order for a retrenchment to be fair, it must comply with both the substantive and procedural requirements stipulated in the Act. After an employee has proved the dismissal, the onus rests on the employer to comply with these two requirements by providing proof thereof. One of the most important procedural requirements that must be complied with by the employer is that the employer cannot merely make a decision to retrench. This decision may only be made once the employer, when contemplating a retrenchment, followed the lengthy consultation process as required in section 189. Recent amendments to section 189 introduced a distinction between a small and big employer and further between a large-scale and small-scale dismissal. If the employee is of the opinion that the employer did not comply with either the procedural or substantive requirements or both, he/she may refer such a dispute for conciliation and thereafter for arbitration or adjudication, according to a dispute resolution process contained in the Act, during which process certain remedies are available to the dismissed employee. The Labour Relations Act 1995 also introduced important amendments which have the effect that employees are allowed to, in certain circumstances, to strike over collective retrenchment disputes.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2003
Insubordination in the workplace
- Authors: Chadd, Kevin Mark
- Date: 1999
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:3668 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1003183 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: This thesis traces the development of insubordination in the employment relationship. The essence of the relationship is that the employee, by contracting out his or her productive capacity, occupies a subordinate position. The primary aim is to locate and define the nature of subordination and to investigate how the breach of this position would justify dismissal as interpreted and applied by the courts. This is achieved by investigating dismissal for insubordination under the common law contract of employment, the unfair labour practice jurisdiction and the 1995 Labour Relations Act. Initially the obligation of the employee to be subordinate, an essential term of the contract of employment, is located and defined by using the tests of Control, Organisation and Dominant Impression, which theoretically indicate the true nature of insubordination. Insubordination under the common law is equated with disobedience to the lawful and reasonable instructions of the employer which were given in good faith and fell squarely within the contractual relationship. Insubordination under the unfair labour practice jurisdiction was equated with a challenge to the authority of the employer of which disobedience was a manifestation of such intention. Instructions given by the employer under the unfair labour practice jurisdiction had to be lawful, reasonable and fair. What was fair depended on the surrounding circumstances of the dismissal and a wilful and unreasonable refusal of the employee to obey the valid instructions of the employer justified dismissal Under the 1995 Labour Relations Act it is submitted that insubordination will be dealt with in essentially the same manner as under the previous jurisdiction, subject to the Act's objectives and purposes. The disobedience of the employee is to be tolerated if that employee is attempting to achieve the Act's objectives, and any dismissal as a result of the disobedience could be unfair, because the employer's conduct fiustrates the purpose of the Act. Therefore, the contractual right of the employer to expect subordination from the employee may have been whittled away to such an extent over time that it seems superficial to regard subordination as an essential term of the contract of employment.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 1999
Substantive fairness in dismissals for operational requirements cases
- Authors: Camagu, Asanda Pumeza
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor discipline -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10214 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1008114 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor discipline -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa
- Description: Part II of the International Labour Organisation Convention 158 recognises operational requirements of an organisation as a ground for dismissal. Section 213 of the Labour Relations Act describes operational requirements reasons as requirements based on the economic, technological, structural or related needs of an employer. The employer‟s needs in case of operational requirement dismissal must be separated from the other reasons for dismissal, such as misconduct and incapacity. Operational requirements dismissals are governed by section 189 of the LRA. The LRA draws a distinction between small and large scale dismissals and regulates them separately. Section 189 control small scale dismissals, while section 189A pertains to large scale dismissals For substantive fairness of a dismissal for operational requirements, the employer must prove that the said reason is one based on operational requirements of the business. The employer must be able to prove that the reason for the dismissal falls within the statutory definition of operational requirements. Employers are not allowed to use retrenchment to dismiss employees who they believe to have performed unsatisfactorily. This means that employers are not entitled to retrench for ulterior reasons, than those of operational requirements.The Labour Court has held that an employer may not under any situation retrench an employee on a fixed-term contract if the termination takes place before the contract of the employee ends, unless the contract of employment makes provision for termination at an earlier date. Retrenchment in this situation will amount to a breach of contract. Another point of interest in dismissals for operational requirements is that the Labour Relations Act states that it is not unlawful to dismiss a striking employee for reasons based on the employer‟s operational requirements. In relation to the selection criteria to be used during these dismissals, the Labour Relations Act again states that if an agreement cannot be reached between the consulting parties, then the employer must use criteria that are fair and objective.
- Full Text: