Article 23/2024

LabourEdge

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.

The purpose of this article is to highlight some of the principles underlying the legal position that the admission of trade union members outside such trade union’s scope is ultra vires and invalid.

How did the labour court, in Simunye Workers Forum v Registrar of Labour Relations, per Van Niekerk J, in terms of s111(3) of the LRA, on appeal, deal with the decision of the registrar refusing the application of the aforesaid trade union?

How do procedural fairness requirements relating to dismissals based upon misconduct (as well as incapacity), contained in the 1995 LRA, differ from the environment that preceded this Act?