Skip to main content

Article 32/2024

LabourEdge

The scenario is as follows: an employee commits misconduct during a fixed-term contract; the employer takes action and dismisses the employee; when the matter is finally heard by the CCMA and a finding is made that dismissal is substantively and procedurally unfair, what are the factors to be taken into account to determine whether or not reinstatement is the appropriate remedy?

_____________________________________

The labour appeal court, in Toyota SA Motors (Pty) Ltd v CCMA and Others (2023) 34 SALLR 74 (LAC); (2023) 44 ILJ 1038 (LAC), approached this issue as follows:

  • integral in the exercise of an arbitrator’s discretion is the nature of the employment contract and whether it is in existence when the appropriate remedy is considered
  • the constitutional court, in Toyota SA Motors (Pty) Ltd v CCMA and Others (2016) 37 ILJ 313 (CC), held that reinstatement was confined to the scenario where, at the date of the finding that the dismissal was unfair, the original employment contract was still in existence
  • where the employee is employed on a fixed-term contract, as is the case in the scenario described above, the expiry of which precedes the finding of an unfair dismissal, reinstatement or re-employment is not legally permissible and the only legal permissible remedy is that of compensation
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?