Skip to main content

Article 20/2023

What is the effect of the BCEA Amendment Act 2018 on the dispute-resolution path for monies owed in terms of the National Minimum Wage Act, a contract of employment, sectoral determination or collective agreement?

_____________________________________

Scenario 1: if the employee or worker earns above the threshold, so established in terms of s6(3) of the BCEA (currently R224 080.48)

  • in such instance, the employee or worker has various alternative dispute avenues, namely, the labour court, or the high court, or the magistrates’ court, or the small claims court

Scenario 2: if the employee earns below the aforesaid threshold

  • in such instance, the only dispute-resolution threshold is compulsory con-arb – this, amongst other things, entails that, before such amendment to s73A of the BCEA, if monies were owed to the employee or worker in terms of a contract of employment, he or she was obliged to recover such monies by following a civil litigation path, whereas, now, compulsory con-arb is the prescribed avenue

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?