Skip to main content

Article 21/2022

What are the incompatibility principles recently identified by the labour appeal court in, inter alia, Zeda Car Leasing (Pty) Ltd t/a Avis Fleet v Van Dyk?

_____________________________________

  1. In Mgijma v Member of the Executive Council, Gauteng Department of Education (2014) 25 SALLR 558 (LC), incompatibility was identified as the inability or failure of an employee to maintain a harmonious relationship with his or her colleagues and relevant factors that needed to be considered included the following:
  • personal conflicts
  • management style
  • inability to integrate into culture and the environment
  • lack of confidence
  • not being able to do the job according to the owner/senior colleague
  1. in Zeda Car Leasing, such non-harmonious relationship was analysed with reference to the corporate culture of the business and not getting on with fellow employees;
  2. in Jabari v Telkom SA [2006] 10 BLLR 924 (LC) and Zeda Car Leasing, incompatibility was categorised as incapacity in terms of s188 of the LRA.  The onus is on the employer to prove that the employee is responsible for the disharmony in the workplace
  3. Mgijma identified the following obligations of an employer when dealing with the alleged incompatibility:
  • the institution of remedial action
  • providing assistance to solve incapacity, including counselling and relationship-building by objectives
  • giving the employee the opportunity to consider the allegations and preparing a response
  • providing the employee with the opportunity of putting his or her version
  • if it is found that the employee is responsible for the disharmony, the employee must be provided with an opportunity to remove the cause of disharmony
  • the employee must be placed in an alternative positon if remedial action has failed

See also Wright v St Mary’s Hospital (1997) 13 ILJ 987 (IC); SA Quilt Manufacturers v Radebe (1994) 15 ILJ 115 (LAC)

  1. if it is found that a senior employee is responsible for the said incompatibility, a more flexible approach than what is set out above may be followed

Brereton v Bateman Industrial Corporation (2000) 21 ILJ 442 (IC)

August 17, 2026

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?

August 10, 2026

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?

August 3, 2026

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