Article 25/2024

LabourEdge

It is well-established that an employee has available to him/her various statutory causes of action dealing with alleged conduct of an employer.  What is also quite clear is that, in addition to and/or alternatively to the above, the employee can also institute a delictual claim.  

Under what circumstances are such delictual claims possible causes of action and what are the fundamental principles governing same?

_____________________________________

  • The viewpoint is held that such alternative delictual claim is possible in, at least, the following three circumstances, namely:
    • automatically unfair dismissals in terms of s187(1)(f) of the LRA
    • constructive dismissals in terms of s186(1)(e) of the LRA
    • unfair discrimination in terms of s6(3) of the EEA
  • The actio legis aquiliae should be utilised for the claiming of patrimonial damage – it is applicable where the employer intentionally or negligently, and also wrongfully, caused the employee patrimonial damage.
  • Furthermore, the employee has available to him/her the actio iniuriarum – where the employer intentionally (dolus animus iniuriandi) infringed the employee’s interest of personality, the employee will be able to recover sentimental damages as a solatium.
  • Erasmus v Dr Beyers Naude Local Municipality and Jack (2021) 32 SALLR 6 (ECG); (2021) 42 ILJ 1545 (ECG) is a good example of such delictual claim within a sexual harassment environment.

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.

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?

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?