Skip to main content

Article 37/2022

What are the principles governing compensation when a dismissal is only procedurally unfair?

_____________________________________

In Zeda Car Leasing (Pty) Ltd t/a Avis Fleet v Van Dyk (2020) 31 SALLR 151 (LAC), the following principles were identified:

  • compensation is the appropriate remedy in terms of s193(2)(d) of the LRA
  • such compensation must be just and equitable in all circumstances (s194(1) of the LRA)

In Johnson & Johnson v CWIU (1999) 20 ILJ 89 (LAC), the following was stated in this regard:

  • actual loss or patrimonial (pecuniary) loss is irrelevant
  • the award is actually for a solatium as redress
  • various factors are to be taken into account to determine the extent of the award:
  • the extent of the deviation from a fair procedure
  • the employee’s conduct
  • the employee’s length of service
  • anxiety and hurt that the employee suffered

(See, further, Alpha Plant v Simmonds [2001] 3 BLLR 361 (LAC); Lorentzen v Sanachem (Pty) Ltd [1998] 8 BLLR 814 (LC))

The appeal court can only interfere with an irregularity misdirection in respect of the awarding of compensation if:

  • the court a quo ignored relevant factors or
  • the decision was based on inadequate facts

Road Accident Fund v Guedes 2006 (5) SA 583 (SCA)

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?