Towards unmasking the true employee in South Africa’s contemporary work environment: the perennial problem of labour law
- Authors: Maloka, Tumo Charles
- Date: 2018
- Subjects: Labor laws and legislation
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Doctoral , LLD
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10353/16874 , vital:40781
- Description: The enormously intricate task of unmasking the true employee in contemporary work environment reveals the dilemmas and complexities embedded in the beguilingly simple but intractable question: who is an employee? The hallmarks of a true employee are shaded in modern work environment given that the actual differences between the categories of “employee” and “independent contractor” are diminishing. The conception of self-employment that links being self-employed inextricably with entrepreneurship, ownership, and autonomy has more to do with ideology than reality. In addressing the opacities of form engendered by “Work on demand via app” and the “Uberisation of work”, the study also attends to the significant and neglected component of labour law’s traditional dilemma. Put simply, how the law identifies an “employer” as a counterparty with an “employee”. Certain features of modern business organisation such as vertical disintegration of production, and their link to the rise of precarious employment underscore the extent to which the concept of employer plays a central role in defining the contours of labour protection. The problems of precarity are deep-seated, long-term and even escalating, especially in compelled and dependent self-employment. Re-appraisal South Africa’s black box of precarious self-employment through the lens of Canadian dependent contractor jurisprudence points to key limitations that should be addressed for a more robust and effective vision of labour regulation. If the definition of “employee” in section 213 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 is amended to redefine an “employee” to include a “dependent contractor”, this will represent a leap forward in tackling the interlinked problems of disguised employment and precarious self-employment. This statutory redefinition of the employee serves two purposes. First, the dependent contractor category solves the broader challenge for labour regulation of how to extend protection to persons who have some of the trappings of the independent contractor, but, in reality, are in a position of i ii economic dependence, resembling that of an employee. In essence, the intermediate category recognises that, as a matter of fairness persons in economic positions that are closely analogous should be given the same legislative treatment. The second purpose, and one no less important, is to fill in the missing piece of the puzzle in the judicially endorsed three-tiered SITA test for identifying employment relationship. If the dependent contractor category is adopted, the lacuna in the threefold SITA test that has so far escaped scholarly, judicial and legislative will be resolved. In this regard, the study contributes to a line of legal scholarship that has tracked the regulatory trajectory for reforming South Africa’s labour laws. It is hoped that this thesis will provoke a sustained, and more curious engagement with the complexities and capacities of labour regulation
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2018
Suspension as an unfair labour practice
- Authors: Share, Hanli
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: Labor laws and legislation , Unfair labor practices
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10273 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1018655
- Description: Suspension as a form of an unfair labour practice can be of two categories. There could be a situation where an employer suspends an employee as a disciplinary sanction after an employee has committed an act of misconduct. This is often referred to as a punitive suspension. An employer may also suspend an employee pending a disciplinary hearing. In this case the employee has not yet been found guilty because the investigation into the alleged misconduct is still on going. The employee may be suspended as a way of preventing him from interfering with the investigation process into the alleged misconduct. This form of suspension is often referred to as a preventative suspension. It is very important to note the distinction between the two forms of suspension because the processes that are followed when effecting them are different. Failure to acknowledge the difference might result in a situation where an employer might be effecting a preventative suspension but the consequences might be that of a punitive suspension and end-up being an unfair labour practice. Suspension is a disciplinary measure, and it is important to note that in the event that the employer elects to implement a suspension, its conduct must be disciplinary in nature and intent and should be corrective rather than punitive.Unlike dismissals where the Code of Good Practice of the Labour Relations Act, No 66 of 1995 provides guidance on what constitutes procedural and substantive fairness, there are no guidelines on what constitutes procedural and substantive fairness when it comes to suspensions. This has resulted in a situation where suspension is treated as a minor aspect of disciplinary measures that is frequently abused as it is often on full remuneration. This, however, does not allow an employer to suspend employees at will, without merit and without following proper procedure. Suspension could have severe adverse effects on employees and often affects their reputation, goodwill, human dignity, self-esteem and the right to meaningful association and work. It is for this reason that suspension must be effected in a way that is procedurally and substantively fair.Punitive suspension is implemented as a sanction and is often without pay and is a last resort prior to dismissal. Preventative suspension occurs prior to a disciplinary hearing, with the aim of temporarily removing the employee from the workplace to enable the employer to conduct a proper investigation without interference. Unfortunately preventative suspensions are often abused by employers in that they protract over extended periods of time, making the preventative suspension punitive in nature, to the extent that the courts have been forced to intervene and lay down stringent requirements that must be met in order to prevent such abuse.There are various requirements for suspension which range from the intention of the employer, the audi alteram partem rule, sufficient reasons prior to suspension to period of suspension. Most employment relationships are governed by disciplinary codes or collective agreements, which often place limitations on the concept of suspension. Some codes provide for special leave at the option of the employee, which the employer often abuses instead of utilizing the preventative suspension option. This, however, is more often than not to suit a political agenda.In the event of non-compliance by an employer, an employee is not left remediless. An unfair suspension constitutes an unfair labour practice and an employee has the right to refer such dispute to the relevant labour forums like the CCMA or the relevant bargaining council. Employees are cautioned not to refer their disputes to the Labour Court for final relief, but rather to only approach the courts for urgent interim relief, like interdicts.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
Towards an efficient Namibian labour dispute resolution system : compliance with international labour standards and a comparison with the South African system
- Authors: Musukubili, Felix Zingolo
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: Dispute resolution (Law) -- Namibia , Dispute resolution (Law) -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation , Arbitration, Industrial -- Namibia , Arbitration, Industrial -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Doctoral , LLD
- Identifier: vital:10243 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1018942
- Description: The thesis examines the Namibian labour dispute resolution system by undertaking a comparative analysis of South African and international labour standards. It describes the legal provisions that exist for the effective and efficient resolution of labour disputes through an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) system, which is given recognition in national labour legislation, and in a number of international labour standards and regional labour instruments. It argues for the provision of a proactive and expeditious dispute resolution system that helps to resolve labour disputes in the most effective and efficient manner, without necessarily having to resort to the courts. The study examines the provisions of relevant international labour standards on labour dispute resolution to ascertain their adequacy as part frameworks that apply to Namibia and South Africa’s obligation to provide ADR systems that respond to the needs of the labour relations community. It is argued that ratifying particular ILO conventions creates obligations to comply with their provisions, and to apply them in national legislation and in practice. It is further argued that by having ratified those international labour standards that provide for ADR, Namibia assumes specific obligations under international law, enjoining the country to provide the required ADR system of conciliation and arbitration, which is credible and trusted by disputants and the general public. A comparative approach is adopted, which relies on primary and secondary sources of data, thereby undertaking an in-depth content analysis. The focus of the comparison is on whether the South African ADR system can inform Namibia’s application of its newly adopted ADR system. South Africa has a labour dispute resolution system that has influenced Namibian labour law, prompting Namibia to borrow its ADR system from South Africa’s advanced Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). In this sense, it is submitted that there are fundamental similarities and differences in the two respective systems. Ideally, disputes should be resolved at conciliation level, resulting in the minority of disputes being referred to arbitration or the Labour Court. In terms of implementation, it is argued that despite the international obligation and commitment to provide and make available free and expeditious ADR services, there are gaps that exist between the legal framework regulating the ADR system and the application thereof in practice, making the attainment of effective and efficient labour dispute resolution difficult. Disputes should be resolved as quickly and informally as possible, with little or no procedural technicalities, and without allowing them to drag on indefinitely, offering immediate solutions instead. This is far from the reality of the situation. In contrast, the study found that although the Labour Act, 2007 and the South African Labour Relations Act (LRA) have brought statutory dispute resolution within the reach of the ordinary worker, these Acts may have compounded the problems relating to dispute resolution in the respective countries. The statutes in question have created sophisticated systems of dispute resolution in which most role players are seen as failing to operate as a result of the complex and technical processes of dealing with disputes. For this reason, the author proposes several remedial interventions that look to the future and the continued provision of fast, effective and user-friendly ADR services. Solving these problems and making effective and efficient labour dispute resolution a reality calls for renewed commitment from government and social partners and investment in appropriate human and financial resources. This requires a strong political will as well as concerted efforts from all role players in the labour relations community in the two respective countries.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
Dismissal law in the education sector
- Authors: Myeki, Mfundo
- Date: 2011
- Subjects: Industrial relations -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation , Labor contract -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10213 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/1567 , Industrial relations -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation , Labor contract -- South Africa
- Description: This treatise will therefore critically discuss fairness requirements in dismissal law within the context of the education sector from: i) the perspective of a dismissed employee; and ii) the perspective of an employer who wishes to dismiss employees fairly; and iii) the perspective of a deemed dismissal. It will be proper to flow this discussion from the premises of what should be considered procedural and substantive fairness in dismissals.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2011