Article 23/2024

Is an employer vicariously liable where its employee is sexually harassed by a superior employee?

_____________________________________

  • In Erasmus v Dr Beyers Naude Local Municipality and Jack (2021) 32 SALLR 6 (ECG); (2021) 42 ILJ 1543 (ECG), the high court paid consideration to the following factors:
    • the employee, when committing the act of sexual harassment, acted solely for his own purpose
    • the incident happened whilst rendering his services for the employer, thus requiring consideration of the objective test pertaining to deviation matters (see Article 22/2024)
  • The high court in casu came to the following conclusions:
    • the nature of the employment relationship presented an opportunity for the wrongful act to be executed in the course of carrying out the employee’s duties
    • there is a duty on an employer to ensure that the employee placed in a position of trust is capable of such trust
    • the trust forged a causal link between the employee executing the wrongful act and the wrongful act itself
    • consequently, the employer and the employee, who committed the sexual harassment, are jointly and severally liable for damages the employee (who was sexually harassed) can prove as a result of the wrongful act (i e the act of sexual harassment)
  • Kindly take note that this common law liability exists over and above the statutory vicarious liability in terms of s60 of the Employment Equity Act.

What approach did the constitutional court recently adopt, in NUMSA v Trenstar (Pty) Ltd (2023) 44 ILJ 1189 (CC)?

Is an employer entitled to rely on s68(1)(b) of the LRA to claim compensation for losses suffered during a protected strike/lockout?

In the scenario where an employer was not permitted to trade during the Covid-19 lockdown (i e hard lockdown), are the employees, who could not tender their services lawfully, entitled to their normal benefits, such as leave and bonus benefits?