Skip to main content

Article 38/2022

What are the remedies available to a successful applicant in an unfair labour practice dispute and how is compensation calculated in this regard?

_____________________________________

Application of s193(4) of the LRA

  • the arbitrator is required to determine the dispute on terms that are reasonable and same may include reinstatement, re-employment or compensation

Application of s193(2) of the LRA

  • The primary relief is reinstatement or re-employment unless in terms of s193(2)(c) of the LRA:
  • the employee does not wish for it or
  • continued employment is intolerable or
  • reinstatement or re-employment is not reasonably practicable or
  • the dismissal is only procedurally unfair

Application of s194(4) of the LRA

  • compensation must be just and equitable in all circumstances but amount to no more than 12 months’ remuneration

Calculation when awarding compensation

  • it is indeed compensation for non-patrimonial loss and the jurisprudence relating to the award of a solatium in respect of the Actio Iniuriarum is relevant (Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development v Tshishonga (2009) 30 ILJ 1799 (LAC)
  • compensation is designed to ‘…compensate the person who has suffered an attack on his or her dignity and reputation or an onslaught on his or her humanity’ – Tshishonga judgment (supra)

The following factors are relevant in this regard:

  • the seriousness of the infringement on the dignity
  • the nature and extent of the publication
  • the reputation of the employee
  • the motives and conduct of the employer (Tshishonga judgment (supra); Mogale and Others v Seima 2008 (5) SA 637 (SCA))

The following guidelines should be applied when calculating compensation:

  • the award must attempt to place the employee in the position he/she would have been in had it not been for the unfair labour practice
  • the award must be reasonable and fair in all circumstances
  • however, there is a duty on the employee to mitigate damages (Solidarity obo Kerns v Mudau NO (2007) 28 ILJ 1146 (LC); Ferodo (Pty) Ltd v De Ruiter (1993) 14 ILJ 974 (LAC))
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?