Skip to main content

Article 23/2023

Delictual claims may be instituted by an employee as an alternative, or in conjunction with various statutory claims. How do these civil claims, based on delict, fit into the following scenarios:

  • an automatically unfair dismissal in terms of s187(1)(f) of the LRA
  • a constructive dismissal in terms of s186(1)(e) of the LRA or
  • unfair discrimination in terms of s6(3) of the EEA?

_____________________________________

  • A civil claim, based on delict, may be instituted by an employee as an alternative claim to the
    aforesaid statutory claims, or in conjunction therewith
  • The first potential delictual claim is to be based on the actio legis aquiliae – this entails that, if the employer negligently or intentionally and wrongfully caused patrimonial (pecuniary) damage to the employee in the aforesaid statutory environment, then the employee, in addition or alternatively to the statutory claims, has access to such a delictual claim
  • Alternatively, and in addition to a claim based on the actio legis aquiliae, the employee may also have a second potential delictual claim based on the actio iniuriarum – if the employer intentionally (dolus animus injuriandi) infringed the interest of personality of the employee, the employee will also be able to recover sentimental damages (solatium)
  • In respect of both the actio legis aquiliae and the actio iniuriarum, the amount of damages that the employee would be entitled to is based on the proven damages

(see, further, Erasmus v Dr Beyers Naude Local Municipality and Jack (2021) 32 SALLR 6 (ECG)

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.

What is the difference between desertion and abscondment?

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?