Article 36/2023

Articles 34/2023 and 35/2023 dealt with the general approach in dealing with compensation where a dismissal is substantively unfair or, alternatively, substantively and procedurally unfair.

However, it appears that the calculation of compensation, if the unfair dismissal took place on the basis of operational requirements, may be treated slightly differently.

What are the relevant principles that practitioners should be aware of when executing dismissals for operational requirements with reference to this deviation?

_____________________________________

  • In Johnson & Johnson v CWIU (1999) 20 ILJ 89 (LAC), the labour appeal court indicated that, when calculating compensation, the actual loss or patrimonial loss is irrelevant and the award of compensation is indeed a solatium taking into account, inter alia, the employee’s hurt in this regard
  • however, despite the above approach, the labour appeal court, in Total SA (Pty) Ltd v Meyer (2021) 32 SALLR 40 (LAC), in applying Kemp t/a Centralmed v Rawlins (2009) 30 ILJ 2677 (LAC), indicated the following:
    • the extent of financial loss suffered by an employee when a dismissal has taken place for operational requirements should be taken into account when calculating compensation (applying this principle to the facts in casu, the labour appeal court held (in Total SA) that severance pay received by the employee in excess of the BCEA should be taken into account in calculating compensation)
July 3, 2025

Is it a requirement that each page of an affidavit must be initialled? Is it a requirement that every page of every annexure to an affidavit must be initialled?

June 26, 2025

The first leg of the test to determine whether or not urgency exists, when an urgent application is brought, requires a court to assess whether an urgent hearing is necessary because the applicant will not be able to obtain substantial redress in the normal course.

June 19, 2025

Previous articles this year dealt with a zero-tolerance policy when tested positively for alcohol or drugs, as well as a zero-tolerance policy in respect of having tested positive for cannabis. In short, the courts hold the viewpoint that, by means of such policies, an employer is not permitted to create an absolute ‘no go zone’ and, furthermore, held that, at all given times, one of the fundamental questions to be asked, irrespective of the content of such zero-tolerance policy, is the effect of the drugs/alcohol/cannabis on the ability of the employee to do his/her job.