Skip to main content

Article 27/2024

LabourEdge

Subsequent to FA v University of Witwatersrand (2023) 44 ILJ 929 (CCMA), Standard Bank of South Africa v Zimbini Makuleni (JR2261/18), Makuleni v Standard Bank of SA Ltd (2023) 34 SALLR 71 (LAC), Centre for Autism Research and Education CC v CCMA and Others (2020) 41 ILJ 2623 (LC) and Gaga v Anglo Platinum Ltd and Others (2012) 33 ILJ 329 (LAC), it is possible to identify various types of workplace bullying.

What are some of the important principles applicable when considering workplace bullying?

_____________________________________

  • In the Standard Bank judgment (LC), Boda AJ indicated that workplace bullying is linked to a feeling of incompetence in handling a job, a sense of alienation from colleagues, anxiety that there will be no promotional recognition, a challenge to job security, feelings of inadequacy and the knock-on tensions in personal relationships – not even to mention depression.
  • With reference to the work done by Professor Alan Rycroft, Boda AJ provided the suggested definition of workplace bullying to include any unfavourable or offensive conduct on the part of a person or persons which has the effect of creating a hostile working environment.
  • Specific behaviours identified to constitute workplace bullying include the following: various forms of persecution, threats and inspiration of fear, degradation, deliberate insults, hypercritical negative responses or attitudes and offensive administrative penal sanctions (directed against an employee without any objective cause, explanations or efforts at resolving any underlying problems).
  • Distinction is to be made between direct/overt bullying when compared to indirect/covert bullying – the latter is subtler and aimed at harming people on an emotional level with the intention to inflict pain in a manner that can be denied at a later stage.
  • A serious form of workplace bullying is gaslighting – these are actions taken by the perpetrator to cause the victim to question him/herself and make the victim doubt his/her competence.
  • A specific type of bullying is gender bullying, distinguishable from the aforesaid general bullying, seeing that this occurs on gender lines – equally, bullying can also take place according to race, etc (i e constituting racial bullying, etc).
  • As a general rule, the sanction of dismissal is applicable, specifically if the offender denies the bullying and showed no remorse.
  • Apart from the aforesaid cases, SALLR delegates are required to have recourse to the CCMA information sheet on harassment, as well as the Code of Good Practice on the Prevention and Elimination of Harassment in the Workplace.
August 17, 2026

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?

August 10, 2026

What is the content of traditional consensus to indicate that an agreement exists between an employer and an employee?

If, on the traditional theory of consensus, a party fails to prove an agreement upon which it relies, with reference to Sonap Petroleum SA (Pty) Ltd v Pappadogianis 1992 (3) SA 234 (A), on what basis can a finding be made that quasi-mutual assent exists, founded on the approach that a party is precluded from denying the existence of an agreement based on their own conduct and the circumstances?

What does the three-fold enquiry entail to determine the presence of quasi-mutual assent?

In determining whether an agreement has been reached in the absence of traditional consensus, but on the basis of quasi-mutual assent, what is the extent of the duty on the party wishing to rely on such an agreement to, on the basis of reasonableness, enquire as to the contradictions that exist in the position of the other party so contained in correspondence?

August 3, 2026

Where do delictual claims fit into dispute resolution options applicable to employment disputes?