Article 15/2023

What are the factors to be taken into account to determine whether misconduct committed outside the workplace, not in execution of duties and outside working hours, including the use of social media, could be addressed by an employer and be subject to disciplinary procedures?

_____________________________________

  • The first issue to be appreciated is to understand that dealing with misconduct outside the
    workplace, when not in execution of duties and outside of working hours, entails a standard of
    ethical conduct to be observed that is so obvious that employees need not be reminded of same
    in any disciplinary code, e g it is obvious to everyone that racial comments cannot be made on
    Facebook outside the workplace and outside working hours

(Tibbett and Britten v Marks (2005) 26 ILJ 940 (LC))

  • Secondly, it is important to also appreciate that disciplinary action can only be taken if a sufficient nexus or bearing on the employment relationship has been established

(Biggar v City of Johannesburg (2017) 38 ILJ 1806 (LC))

  • Thirdly, it is important to also appreciate that the existence or otherwise of such sufficient nexus
    entails a multi-faceted enquiry with reference to, inter alia, the following factors:

    • the size of the employer
    • the nature and size of the workforce
    • the nature of the work performed by the employer and the relevant employee
    • the capacity of the employee to do the job
    • the position of the employer in the marketplace and profile
    • the relationship between the employee and the victim
    • the impact of the misconduct on the workforce
    • the relationship between the employer and the employee

(Hoechst v CWIU (1993) 14 ILJ 1449 (LAC), Edcon v Cantamessa [2020] 2 BLLR 186 (LC),
Makhoba v CCMA (2022) 33 SALLR 10 (LC))

What are the principles governing the vicarious liability of an employer for acts committed by an employee in breach of the EEA, in terms of s60 of the EEA?

The scenario is as follows: only employees working at a bakery and not employees working at a mill were party to the disputes when referred to conciliation.  At arbitration, the union wanted to join the employees working at the mill.

Is such joinder permissible?

What is the test for unfair discrimination formulated in Harksen v Lane and consistently applied subsequently by the various courts, including, recently, Premier FMCG (Pty) Ltd t/a Blue Ribbon Bakery v FAWU (2022) 33 SALLR 277 (LC); (2022) 43 ILJ 1584 (LC)?