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)

June 12, 2025

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.

June 5, 2025

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?

May 29, 2025

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?