Article 26/2023

The constitutional court recently, in McGregor v Public Health and Social Development Sectoral Bargaining Council (2021) 32 SALLR 33 (CC), had the opportunity to deal with the perception that, once a finding is made that an employee has been unfairly dismissed, he or she is automatically entitled to a remedy.

What was the approach adopted by the constitutional court?

_____________________________________

With reference to Kemp t/a Centralmed v Rawlins (2009) 30 ILJ 2677 (LAC), the constitutional court
held the following viewpoint: ‘Although every employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed in
terms of s185(a) of the LRA, the infringement of that right neither necessarily nor automatically
confers a right to a remedy…’

In short, the above approach entails that arbitrators will be required to justify why a remedy (e g
reinstatement, re-employment or compensation) was specifically granted on the facts of the case and,
if they are not able to do so, this would potentially constitute a reviewable ground for such arbitration
award.

How should an employee be dealt with if tested positive for being under the influence of cannabis?

Has the decriminalisation of the use of cannabis in private surroundings had any effect on the
approach to be adopted?

How should an employee be dealt with if tested positive for being under the influence of cannabis?

Has the decriminalisation of the use of cannabis in private surroundings had any effect on the
approach to be adopted?

How should an employee be dealt with if tested positive for being under the influence of cannabis?

Has the decriminalisation of the use of cannabis in private surroundings had any effect on the
approach to be adopted?