Skip to main content

Article 22/2023

What is the interpretive approach to be adopted in respect of, inter alia:

  • pre-trial minutes
  • content of the BCEA
  • strike ballot guidelines
  • protest action
  • the content of the LRA
  • a separation agreement
  • benefits
  • advisory arbitration award
  • secondary strikes, etc?

_____________________________________

Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality 2012 (4) SA 593 (SCA) (para [18] et seq) formulates the approach to be adopted when interpreting legislation, other statutory instruments or contracts and essentially entails the following:

  • the starting point is attributing meaning to words used in the aforesaid documents
  • the language of the provisions must be read with reference to the context (reading the document as a whole), the purpose of the provision(s) and the background preparation and production of
    the document
  • obviously, consideration must be given to the language used with reference to the ordinary rules of grammar and syntax
  • where more than one meaning is possible, each meaning must be weighted with reference to the aforesaid factors and a sensible meaning is to be preferred to one that leads to insensible or unbusinesslike results or undermines the apparent purpose of the document
  • judges (and arbitrators) must be alert not to substitute what they think is reasonable, sensible or businesslike for the actual words used in the documents
  • the process of interpretation is objective and not subjective
September 7, 2026

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.

August 31, 2026

What is the difference between desertion and abscondment?

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?