- Title
- Re(viewing) the constitutional court's decision in Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Ltd
- Creator
- Partington, Jonathan
- Subject
- Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa -- Cases
- Subject
- Unfair labour practices -- South Africa -- Cases
- Subject
- Arbitration, Industrial -- South Africa -- Cases
- Subject
- Constitutional courts -- South Africa -- Decision making
- Date Issued
- 2009
- Date
- 2009
- Type
- Thesis
- Type
- Masters
- Type
- LLM
- Identifier
- vital:10228
- Identifier
- http://hdl.handle.net/10948/1032
- Identifier
- Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa -- Cases
- Identifier
- Unfair labour practices -- South Africa -- Cases
- Identifier
- Arbitration, Industrial -- South Africa -- Cases
- Identifier
- Constitutional courts -- South Africa -- Decision making
- Description
- In Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Ltd ((2007) 12 BLLR 1097 (CC); (2007) 28 ILJ 2405 (CC); 2008 (2) SA 24 (CC)) the Constitutional Court made two findings of immense significance for dismissed employees: firstly, the court rejected the use of the so-called “reasonable employer” test in our law, a test which traditionally required arbitrators and courts evaluating the fairness of a dismissal for proven misconduct to treat the employer’s decision on sanction with a measure of deference; and secondly, on scrutiny of the more controversial issue before the court, to wit, the basis, if any, upon which arbitrators are obliged to make reasonable decisions, the court (in confirming that arbitrators are so obliged) held that the obligation to do so suffuses section 145 of the LRA, and that the extended review grounds legislated under PAJA do not apply. In the present article these judicial conclusions are critically analysed and evaluated, and a number of submissions are made, inter alia: it is submitted that the Constitutional Court’s rejection of the “reasonable employer” test was premised on a fundamental misinterpretation of the test; that while the court’s attempt to locate the reasonableness standard within the LRA was perhaps justifiable, the court failed to consider properly, or at all, the wording of section 145 and its history, with the consequence that the court failed to appreciate that section 145 of the LRA (save on an unduly strained interpretation) could not conceivably be construed to cater, in itself and without more, for the constitutional right to lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair administrative action; and further, that the labour landscape post-Sidumo is, to an extent, unquestionably one bathed in greater uncertainty. In conclusion, the author poses the question whether, on a review of Sidumo, the Constitutional Court should not be considered to have fallen short of fulfilling its constitutional obligations under the rule of law.
- Format
- iv, 66 leaves ; 30 cm
- Format
- Publisher
- Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
- Publisher
- Faculty of Law
- Language
- English
- Rights
- Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
- Hits: 1300
- Visitors: 1403
- Downloads: 143
Collections
NMMU Department of Mercantile Law
| Thumbnail | File | Description | Size | Format | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| View Details Download | SOURCEPDF | 245 KB | Adobe Acrobat PDF | View Details Download |