Skip to main content

Article 31/2021

Labour Edge

In general terms, the determination of the fairness of a dismissal requires an arbitrator to form a value judgment, having regard to the interests of both the employer and the employee, and to achieve a balanced and equitable assessment of the fairness of the sanction.  What are the types of factors to be taken into account in determining whether the employer had thus acted fairly in deciding to dismiss an employee?

  1. the importance of the rule that had been breached (seriousness of the misconduct);
  2. the reason the employer imposed the sanction of dismissal;
  3. the explanation presented by the employee for the misconduct;
  4. the harm caused by the employee’s conduct;
  5. whether additional training and instruction may result in the employee not repeating the misconduct;
  6. the service record of the employee;
  7. the breakdown of the trust/employment relationship between the employer and employee;
  8. the existence or not of dishonesty;
  9. the possibility of progressive discipline;
  10. the existence or not of remorse;
  11. the job function of the employee; and
  12. the employer’s disciplinary code and procedure (Sidumo (supra), at paragraph [78]; National Commissioner of the SA Police Service v Myers and Others (2012) 33 ILJ 1417 (LAC), at paragraph [82]; Bridgestone SA (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Metalworkers of SA and Others (2016) 37 ILJ 2277 (LAC), at paragraphs [17]–[18]; Woolworths (Pty) Ltd v SA Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union and Others (2016) 37 ILJ 2831 (LAC), at paragraph [14]; Msunduzi Municipality v Hoskins (2017) 38 ILJ 582 (LAC), at paragraph [30]; Eskom Holdings Ltd v Fipaza and Others (2013) 34 ILJ 549 (LAC), at paragraph [54]; Samancor Chrome Ltd (Tubatse Ferrochrome) v Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (2011) 32 ILJ 1057 (LAC), at paragraph [34]; Mutual Construction Co Tvl (Pty) Ltd v Ntombela NO and Others (2010) 31 ILJ 901 (LAC), at paragraphs [37]–[38]; Fidelity Cash Management Service v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (2008) 29 ILJ 964 (LAC); [2008] 3 BLLR 197 (LAC), at paragraph [94]).
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?