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))

In terms of s34(1) of the BCEA, an employer may not make deductions from an employee’s remuneration unless, subject to s34(2), the employee agrees, in writing, or the deduction is made in terms of a law, collective agreement, court order or arbitration award.

A case is moot and therefore not justiciable if it no longer presents an existing or live controversy. With reference to National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others [1999] ZACC 17; 2000 (2) SA 1 (CC), how did the supreme court of appeal, in Mhlontlo Local Municipality and Others v Ngcangula and Another (2024) 35 SALLR 132 (SCA) recently deal with this issue?

The principle underlying the doctrine of peremption is that no person can be allowed to take up two positions inconsistent with one another, or, as is commonly expressed, to blow hot and cold, to approbate and reprobate when considering pursuing litigation. With reference to Qoboshiyane NO v Avusa Publishing Eastern Cape [2012] ZASCA 166; 2013 (3) SA 315 (SCA), what is the test to be applied to determine whether or not a party has perempted its right to institute legal proceedings?