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)

October 10, 2024

What approach did the constitutional court recently adopt, in NUMSA v Trenstar (Pty) Ltd (2023) 44 ILJ 1189 (CC)?

October 3, 2024

Is an employer entitled to rely on s68(1)(b) of the LRA to claim compensation for losses suffered during a protected strike/lockout?

September 26, 2024

In the scenario where an employer was not permitted to trade during the Covid-19 lockdown (i e hard lockdown), are the employees, who could not tender their services lawfully, entitled to their normal benefits, such as leave and bonus benefits?