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

The previous article dealt with the distinction between misconduct constituting desertion and misconduct constituting abscondment – see, further, in this regard, Okhahlamba Local Municipality v Mabuya (2021) 32 SALLR 12 (LC).

In this article, what we attempt to do is provide some clarity as to a very different misconduct, namely, the misconduct of deeming desertion.

What is the difference between desertion and abscondment?

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?