Termination of the contract of employment not constituting dismissal
- Authors: Sipuka, Sibongile
- Date: 2015
- 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:10258 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1021152
- Description: Section 23 of the Constitution provides that everyone has a right to fair labour practice. The constitutional right to fair labour practices includes the right not to be unfairly dismissed and is given effect to by section 185 of the LRA. The constitutional right not to be unfairly dismissed is given effect to by Chapter VIII of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (the LRA), which provides a remedy for an unfair dismissal. Schedule 8 of the LRA contains a “Code of Good Practice: Dismissal”, which the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (the CCMA) and the Labour Courts must take into account when determining the fairness of a dismissal. The LRA expressly recognises three grounds for termination of the employment contract namely; misconduct on the part of the employee, incapacity due to an employee’s poor work performance, ill health or injury and termination due an employer’s operational requirements. In terms of the LRA, a dismissal must be procedurally and substantively fair. The requirements for procedural and substantive fairness are contained in Schedule 8 of the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal. The provisions of section 185 of the LRA apply to all employers and employees in both the public and the private sectors, with the exception of members of the National Defence Force, the National Intelligence Agency, the South African Secret Service and the South African National Academy of Intelligence. Section 213 of the LRA defines an “employee” as any person, excluding an independent contractor, who works for another person or for the State and who receives, or is entitled to receive, any remuneration and any person who in any manner assists in carrying out or conducting the business of an employer. Section 200A of the LRA sets out the presumption as to who is an employee. This is a guideline to assist in determining who is an employee The Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (the BCEA) sets minimum terms and conditions of employment including the notice of termination of employment. Under the common law an employment contract of employment can be terminated on either the expiration of the agreed period of employment or on completion of the specified task in cases of fixed-term contracts. Also, in terms of general contract principles an employment contract may be terminated by notice duly given by either party or by summary termination in the event of a material breach on the part of either party. The death of either party may terminate the employment contract. However, the death of an employer will not necessarily lead to the contract’s termination. An employment contract may also terminate by operation of law or effluxion of time namely retirement and coming into being of fixed-term contracts, by mutual agreement, employee resigning, due to insolvency of the employer and due to supervening impossibility of performance. In the circumstances indicated above, the termination of the contract of employment does not constitute dismissal. This means that the CCMA and the Labour Court do not have jurisdiction to determine should the employee allege that his or her dismissal was unfair. It has been argued that the instances where a termination of a contract of employment is terminated, but there is no dismissal should be scrutinised to avoid a situation where employees are deprived of protection afforded by the fundamental right not to be unfairly dismissed. There have been some instances where employment contracts contain clauses that provide for automatic termination of employment contracts. It has been held by the courts in various decisions that such clauses are against public policy and thus invalid. The Labour Court stated that a contractual device that renders the termination of a contract something other than a dismissal is exactly the exploitation the LRA prohibits There are various court decisions providing guidelines of circumstances in which termination of employment may be regarded as not constituting dismissal. The main focus of the treatise is to discuss these instances and critically analyse the approach taken by forums like the CCMA, bargaining councils and the Labour Court in dealing with such instances
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
- Authors: Sipuka, Sibongile
- Date: 2015
- 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:10258 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1021152
- Description: Section 23 of the Constitution provides that everyone has a right to fair labour practice. The constitutional right to fair labour practices includes the right not to be unfairly dismissed and is given effect to by section 185 of the LRA. The constitutional right not to be unfairly dismissed is given effect to by Chapter VIII of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (the LRA), which provides a remedy for an unfair dismissal. Schedule 8 of the LRA contains a “Code of Good Practice: Dismissal”, which the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (the CCMA) and the Labour Courts must take into account when determining the fairness of a dismissal. The LRA expressly recognises three grounds for termination of the employment contract namely; misconduct on the part of the employee, incapacity due to an employee’s poor work performance, ill health or injury and termination due an employer’s operational requirements. In terms of the LRA, a dismissal must be procedurally and substantively fair. The requirements for procedural and substantive fairness are contained in Schedule 8 of the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal. The provisions of section 185 of the LRA apply to all employers and employees in both the public and the private sectors, with the exception of members of the National Defence Force, the National Intelligence Agency, the South African Secret Service and the South African National Academy of Intelligence. Section 213 of the LRA defines an “employee” as any person, excluding an independent contractor, who works for another person or for the State and who receives, or is entitled to receive, any remuneration and any person who in any manner assists in carrying out or conducting the business of an employer. Section 200A of the LRA sets out the presumption as to who is an employee. This is a guideline to assist in determining who is an employee The Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (the BCEA) sets minimum terms and conditions of employment including the notice of termination of employment. Under the common law an employment contract of employment can be terminated on either the expiration of the agreed period of employment or on completion of the specified task in cases of fixed-term contracts. Also, in terms of general contract principles an employment contract may be terminated by notice duly given by either party or by summary termination in the event of a material breach on the part of either party. The death of either party may terminate the employment contract. However, the death of an employer will not necessarily lead to the contract’s termination. An employment contract may also terminate by operation of law or effluxion of time namely retirement and coming into being of fixed-term contracts, by mutual agreement, employee resigning, due to insolvency of the employer and due to supervening impossibility of performance. In the circumstances indicated above, the termination of the contract of employment does not constitute dismissal. This means that the CCMA and the Labour Court do not have jurisdiction to determine should the employee allege that his or her dismissal was unfair. It has been argued that the instances where a termination of a contract of employment is terminated, but there is no dismissal should be scrutinised to avoid a situation where employees are deprived of protection afforded by the fundamental right not to be unfairly dismissed. There have been some instances where employment contracts contain clauses that provide for automatic termination of employment contracts. It has been held by the courts in various decisions that such clauses are against public policy and thus invalid. The Labour Court stated that a contractual device that renders the termination of a contract something other than a dismissal is exactly the exploitation the LRA prohibits There are various court decisions providing guidelines of circumstances in which termination of employment may be regarded as not constituting dismissal. The main focus of the treatise is to discuss these instances and critically analyse the approach taken by forums like the CCMA, bargaining councils and the Labour Court in dealing with such instances
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
Termination of the contract of employment not constituting dismissal
- Sipuka, Sibongile, Supervisor details
- Authors: Sipuka, Sibongile , Supervisor details
- Date: 2015
- 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: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/4811 , vital:20701
- Description: Section 23 of the Constitution provides that everyone has a right to fair labour practice. The constitutional right to fair labour practices includes the right not to be unfairly dismissed and is given effect to by section 185 of the LRA. The constitutional right not to be unfairly dismissed is given effect to by Chapter VIII of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (the LRA), which provides a remedy for an unfair dismissal. Schedule 8 of the LRA contains a “Code of Good Practice: Dismissal”, which the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (the CCMA) and the Labour Courts must take into account when determining the fairness of a dismissal. The LRA expressly recognises three grounds for termination of the employment contract namely; misconduct on the part of the employee, incapacity due to an employee’s poor work performance, ill health or injury and termination due an employer’s operational requirements. In terms of the LRA, a dismissal must be procedurally and substantively fair. The requirements for procedural and substantive fairness are contained in Schedule 8 of the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal. The provisions of section 185 of the LRA apply to all employers and employees in both the public and the private sectors, with the exception of members of the National Defence Force, the National Intelligence Agency, the South African Secret Service and the South African National Academy of Intelligence. Section 213 of the LRA defines an “employee” as any person, excluding an independent contractor, who works for another person or for the State and who receives, or is entitled to receive, any remuneration and any person who in any manner assists in carrying out or conducting the business of an employer. Section 200A of the LRA sets out the presumption as to who is an employee. This is a guideline to assist in determining who is an employee. The Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (the BCEA) sets minimum terms and conditions of employment including the notice of termination of employment. Under the common law an employment contract of employment can be terminated on either the expiration of the agreed period of employment or on completion of the specified task in cases of fixed-term contracts. Also, in terms of general contract principles an employment contract may be terminated by notice duly given by either party or by summary termination in the event of a material breach on the part of either party. The death of either party may terminate the employment contract. However, the death of an employer will not necessarily lead to the contract’s termination. An employment contract may also terminate by operation of law or effluxion of time namely retirement and coming into being of fixed-term contracts, by mutual agreement, employee resigning, due to insolvency of the employer and due to supervening impossibility of performance. In the circumstances indicated above, the termination of the contract of employment does not constitute dismissal. This means that the CCMA and the Labour Court do not have jurisdiction to determine should the employee allege that his or her dismissal was unfair. It has been argued that the instances where a termination of a contract of employment is terminated, but there is no dismissal should be scrutinised to avoid a situation where employees are deprived of protection afforded by the fundamental right not to be unfairly dismissed. There have been some instances where employment contracts contain clauses that provide for automatic termination of employment contracts. It has been held by the courts in various decisions that such clauses are against public policy and thus invalid. The Labour Court stated that a contractual device that renders the termination of a contract something other than a dismissal is exactly the exploitation the LRA prohibits. There are various court decisions providing guidelines of circumstances in which termination of employment may be regarded as not constituting dismissal. The main focus of the treatise is to discuss these instances and critically analyse the approach taken by forums like the CCMA, bargaining councils and the Labour Court in dealing with such instances.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
- Authors: Sipuka, Sibongile , Supervisor details
- Date: 2015
- 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: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/4811 , vital:20701
- Description: Section 23 of the Constitution provides that everyone has a right to fair labour practice. The constitutional right to fair labour practices includes the right not to be unfairly dismissed and is given effect to by section 185 of the LRA. The constitutional right not to be unfairly dismissed is given effect to by Chapter VIII of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (the LRA), which provides a remedy for an unfair dismissal. Schedule 8 of the LRA contains a “Code of Good Practice: Dismissal”, which the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (the CCMA) and the Labour Courts must take into account when determining the fairness of a dismissal. The LRA expressly recognises three grounds for termination of the employment contract namely; misconduct on the part of the employee, incapacity due to an employee’s poor work performance, ill health or injury and termination due an employer’s operational requirements. In terms of the LRA, a dismissal must be procedurally and substantively fair. The requirements for procedural and substantive fairness are contained in Schedule 8 of the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal. The provisions of section 185 of the LRA apply to all employers and employees in both the public and the private sectors, with the exception of members of the National Defence Force, the National Intelligence Agency, the South African Secret Service and the South African National Academy of Intelligence. Section 213 of the LRA defines an “employee” as any person, excluding an independent contractor, who works for another person or for the State and who receives, or is entitled to receive, any remuneration and any person who in any manner assists in carrying out or conducting the business of an employer. Section 200A of the LRA sets out the presumption as to who is an employee. This is a guideline to assist in determining who is an employee. The Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (the BCEA) sets minimum terms and conditions of employment including the notice of termination of employment. Under the common law an employment contract of employment can be terminated on either the expiration of the agreed period of employment or on completion of the specified task in cases of fixed-term contracts. Also, in terms of general contract principles an employment contract may be terminated by notice duly given by either party or by summary termination in the event of a material breach on the part of either party. The death of either party may terminate the employment contract. However, the death of an employer will not necessarily lead to the contract’s termination. An employment contract may also terminate by operation of law or effluxion of time namely retirement and coming into being of fixed-term contracts, by mutual agreement, employee resigning, due to insolvency of the employer and due to supervening impossibility of performance. In the circumstances indicated above, the termination of the contract of employment does not constitute dismissal. This means that the CCMA and the Labour Court do not have jurisdiction to determine should the employee allege that his or her dismissal was unfair. It has been argued that the instances where a termination of a contract of employment is terminated, but there is no dismissal should be scrutinised to avoid a situation where employees are deprived of protection afforded by the fundamental right not to be unfairly dismissed. There have been some instances where employment contracts contain clauses that provide for automatic termination of employment contracts. It has been held by the courts in various decisions that such clauses are against public policy and thus invalid. The Labour Court stated that a contractual device that renders the termination of a contract something other than a dismissal is exactly the exploitation the LRA prohibits. There are various court decisions providing guidelines of circumstances in which termination of employment may be regarded as not constituting dismissal. The main focus of the treatise is to discuss these instances and critically analyse the approach taken by forums like the CCMA, bargaining councils and the Labour Court in dealing with such instances.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
The legal consequences of alcohol and drugs in the workplace
- Authors: Swartz, Johnny Dick
- Date: 2012
- Subjects: Labor discipline -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Employees -- Alcohol use , Drugs and employment
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10248 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1019960
- Description: Drug and alcohol abuse in the workplace is a worldwide problem as it impacts on the company efficiency and cost effectiveness. Companies have prioritized the need to find ways of managing and reducing intoxication in the workplace. In South Africa such processes have to occur within the confines of a constitutional right of fair labour practices and other prescriptive labour legislation. An employee has a constitutional obligation to give faithful and diligent service to the employer. Intoxication contradicts this obligation and may pose a security risk in the workplace. It will be incumbent of an employer to prove that the employee was drunk at the relevant time or was affected by liquor or narcotic substance. Suspicion regarding abuse of alcohol and drugs without proper evidence to support such claims will not satisfy the substantive fairness requirements. When it comes to proving that the employee is indeed under the influence of alcohol and drugs in the workplace, many questions arise. Is it necessary for the employer always to conduct a breathalyzer test or even a blood or urine test? Is it sufficient for the employer to lead other evidence like smelled of alcohol, unsteadiness on his feet and slurred speech? The author will attempt to answer these questions. An employee who consumes alcohol or drugs in the workplace can either be disciplined for misconduct or incapacity. The dividing line between misconduct and incapacity is not always clear. The author suggests various ways of dealing with alcohol and drug-related misconduct and incapacity depending on the facts of each case. Disciplinary sanctions should, as far as possible, be designed to discourage repeated alcohol and drug abuse. Different standards of conduct may be expected of different employees given the nature of their work and the degree of their responsibility. Fair discipline requires a fair procedure, fair disciplinary rules and a fair graduated system of punishment. Termination for incapacity occurs if the employee no longer has the capacity work (on account of his alcohol and drug dependence). Termination for misconduct occurs if the employee consistently acts as though he is not bound by the rules of conduct within the employer‟s establishment on account of his repeated alcohol or drug abuse. Discipline should be progressive in nature, intended to remedy rather than merely punish wrongful behaviour. Case law suggests that employers treat alcohol and drug dependence, the same as other illnesses, with sympathy, understanding and compassion. The author suggests that alcohol and drug abuse in the workplace must be dealt with on a case to case basis
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2012
- Authors: Swartz, Johnny Dick
- Date: 2012
- Subjects: Labor discipline -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Employees -- Alcohol use , Drugs and employment
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10248 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1019960
- Description: Drug and alcohol abuse in the workplace is a worldwide problem as it impacts on the company efficiency and cost effectiveness. Companies have prioritized the need to find ways of managing and reducing intoxication in the workplace. In South Africa such processes have to occur within the confines of a constitutional right of fair labour practices and other prescriptive labour legislation. An employee has a constitutional obligation to give faithful and diligent service to the employer. Intoxication contradicts this obligation and may pose a security risk in the workplace. It will be incumbent of an employer to prove that the employee was drunk at the relevant time or was affected by liquor or narcotic substance. Suspicion regarding abuse of alcohol and drugs without proper evidence to support such claims will not satisfy the substantive fairness requirements. When it comes to proving that the employee is indeed under the influence of alcohol and drugs in the workplace, many questions arise. Is it necessary for the employer always to conduct a breathalyzer test or even a blood or urine test? Is it sufficient for the employer to lead other evidence like smelled of alcohol, unsteadiness on his feet and slurred speech? The author will attempt to answer these questions. An employee who consumes alcohol or drugs in the workplace can either be disciplined for misconduct or incapacity. The dividing line between misconduct and incapacity is not always clear. The author suggests various ways of dealing with alcohol and drug-related misconduct and incapacity depending on the facts of each case. Disciplinary sanctions should, as far as possible, be designed to discourage repeated alcohol and drug abuse. Different standards of conduct may be expected of different employees given the nature of their work and the degree of their responsibility. Fair discipline requires a fair procedure, fair disciplinary rules and a fair graduated system of punishment. Termination for incapacity occurs if the employee no longer has the capacity work (on account of his alcohol and drug dependence). Termination for misconduct occurs if the employee consistently acts as though he is not bound by the rules of conduct within the employer‟s establishment on account of his repeated alcohol or drug abuse. Discipline should be progressive in nature, intended to remedy rather than merely punish wrongful behaviour. Case law suggests that employers treat alcohol and drug dependence, the same as other illnesses, with sympathy, understanding and compassion. The author suggests that alcohol and drug abuse in the workplace must be dealt with on a case to case basis
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2012
Substantive fairness of dismissal for misconduct
- Authors: Toba, Wilson
- Date: 2004
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor discipline -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:11063 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/355 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor discipline -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: In the employment context employers may view certain conduct/behaviour committed by an employee or a group of employees to be repugnant and unacceptable resulting in the disciplinary action that may lead to a dismissal sanction taken against such employee or employees. Even though the employer has a right to discipline the employees for a contravention of a rule or a policy and even dismiss the employee/s involved, such a disciplinary action and dismissal must be based on a certain procedure where the principle of fairness must be adhered to. The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“the Act”) and Schedule 8 of the Code of Good Practice deals with the aspects of dismissals related to conduct and capacity, however, each case is unique, it has to be approached on its own merits. Schedule 8(3) states that, “formal procedures in disciplinary measures do not have to be invoked every time a rule is broken or a standard is not met”. It is therefore necessary that there should be a disciplinary code which guides the workers and the employers, it must be clear and be understood by all the parties. The disciplinary code of conduct serves as the foundation of good discipline because everybody knows the consequences of his/her contravention of those guidelines enumerated in the Code of Conduct. The Code of Good Practice under Schedule 8(3), states that “while employees should be protected from arbitrary action, employers are entitled to satisfactory conduct and work performance from their employees”, so a very good relationship between the two parties is most important if there is to be stability and industrial peace in the workplace.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2004
- Authors: Toba, Wilson
- Date: 2004
- Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor discipline -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:11063 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/355 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor discipline -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: In the employment context employers may view certain conduct/behaviour committed by an employee or a group of employees to be repugnant and unacceptable resulting in the disciplinary action that may lead to a dismissal sanction taken against such employee or employees. Even though the employer has a right to discipline the employees for a contravention of a rule or a policy and even dismiss the employee/s involved, such a disciplinary action and dismissal must be based on a certain procedure where the principle of fairness must be adhered to. The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“the Act”) and Schedule 8 of the Code of Good Practice deals with the aspects of dismissals related to conduct and capacity, however, each case is unique, it has to be approached on its own merits. Schedule 8(3) states that, “formal procedures in disciplinary measures do not have to be invoked every time a rule is broken or a standard is not met”. It is therefore necessary that there should be a disciplinary code which guides the workers and the employers, it must be clear and be understood by all the parties. The disciplinary code of conduct serves as the foundation of good discipline because everybody knows the consequences of his/her contravention of those guidelines enumerated in the Code of Conduct. The Code of Good Practice under Schedule 8(3), states that “while employees should be protected from arbitrary action, employers are entitled to satisfactory conduct and work performance from their employees”, so a very good relationship between the two parties is most important if there is to be stability and industrial peace in the workplace.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2004
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:
- 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:
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »