Skip to main content

Article 19/2021

Labour Edge

The scenario is as follows: an employer and employee conclude a retention bonus agreement.  The employer is in non-compliance with certain material aspects of such agreement.  The employee has not accepted such breaches.  Until when is the employer entitled to retract its position?


Traditionally it is said that repudiation is only ‘completed’ or rendered ‘absolute’ or ‘definite’ by its acceptance by the innocent party. Until there has been such acceptance the repudiation may be nullified or undone by the unilateral act of the innocent party (rejection of the repudiation) or the repudiator him-or herself (retraction of the repudiation). A repudiation is also said to lapse if it is not acted upon by the innocent party within a reasonable time.

 

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?

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?

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