Skip to main content

Article 13/2022

What are the stages identified when a restructuring exercise has been undertaken in the scenario where employees compete for new positions in such restructured organisation?

_____________________________________

In Pratten v Afrisun KZN (Pty) Ltd (2020) 31 SALLR 159 (LC), the labour court identified the following stages:

stages 1 and 2

  • during these stages, compliance with minimum criteria (e.g. minimum qualifications, applicable minimum experience, etc) are to be established
  • only those employees who comply with such minimum criteria are to be assessed in the assessment process where behavioural competencies are to be determined
  • those employees who do not comply with the said minimum criteria, do not participate in the subsequent stages and fall out of the process, subject to the employer attempting to find alternative employment

stage 3

  • only those employees who comply with the aforesaid minimum criteria are to proceed to stage 3, which stage entails, in essence, the assessment of behavioural competencies of such employees, in a ranking system (by means of psychometric testing)

stage 4

  • the results of stage 3 will determine whether or not employees are placed
  • should an employee fall out on the basis of such results, the employer will attempt to find alternative employment for the employee
  • however, successful candidates will only be placed if they accept the terms and conditions attached to the new restructured positions – if they do not accept such terms and conditions, they fall out of the process, subject to the employer attempting to find alternative employment
August 17, 2026

We think that everyone understands that an employer is vicariously liable for the wrong committed (an act or omission) by its employee during the course/scope/sphere of employment/engagement in any activity reasonably incidental to it.

But, what is the extent of an employer’s vicarious liability where the employee commits a wrong on his or her own volition?

August 10, 2026

What is the content of traditional consensus to indicate that an agreement exists between an employer and an employee?

If, on the traditional theory of consensus, a party fails to prove an agreement upon which it relies, with reference to Sonap Petroleum SA (Pty) Ltd v Pappadogianis 1992 (3) SA 234 (A), on what basis can a finding be made that quasi-mutual assent exists, founded on the approach that a party is precluded from denying the existence of an agreement based on their own conduct and the circumstances?

What does the three-fold enquiry entail to determine the presence of quasi-mutual assent?

In determining whether an agreement has been reached in the absence of traditional consensus, but on the basis of quasi-mutual assent, what is the extent of the duty on the party wishing to rely on such an agreement to, on the basis of reasonableness, enquire as to the contradictions that exist in the position of the other party so contained in correspondence?

August 3, 2026

Where do delictual claims fit into dispute resolution options applicable to employment disputes?