Article 4/2024

The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (‘LRA’) has created a statutory formula to be applied when dealing with breaches of workplace rules.  Depending on the manner in terms of which the relevant workplace rule has been breached, various items of Schedule 8 of the LRA would be applicable.  What is the approach to be adopted to determine which items of Schedule 8 are applicable when judging the statutory fairness of an employer’s conduct?

_____________________________________

Scenario 1: misconduct

  • If the employee breached a workplace rule with fault (intentionally or negligently) and in a wrongful manner, then, in essence, the employee committed misconduct
  • Misconduct generally is to be treated in terms of items 1 to 5 and 7 of Schedule 8.
  • On the other hand, misconduct, entailing the participation in an unprotected strike and the collective withdrawal of labour, is to be dealt with in terms of items 6 and 7 of Schedule 8

Scenario 2: ill-health/injury

If the employee fails to comply with a workplace rule in a faultless scenario (i e without intention or negligent) but still wrongfully, and the basis for non-compliance with such workplace rule is his/her ill-health or injury, then items 10 and 11 of Schedule are applicable.

Scenario 3: poor-work performance

  • Scenario 3 is similar to scenario 2, but the only difference is that the reason for such non-compliance is not the ill-health/injury of the employee, but the employee’s poor work performance.
  • Treating an employee for poor work performance is thus the default position if non-compliance with a workplace rule has not been established on the basis of ill-health/injury and such non-compliance is faultless – items 8 and 9 of Schedule 8 of the LRA are then applicable.

What are the principles governing the vicarious liability of an employer for acts committed by an employee in breach of the EEA, in terms of s60 of the EEA?

The scenario is as follows: only employees working at a bakery and not employees working at a mill were party to the disputes when referred to conciliation.  At arbitration, the union wanted to join the employees working at the mill.

Is such joinder permissible?

What is the test for unfair discrimination formulated in Harksen v Lane and consistently applied subsequently by the various courts, including, recently, Premier FMCG (Pty) Ltd t/a Blue Ribbon Bakery v FAWU (2022) 33 SALLR 277 (LC); (2022) 43 ILJ 1584 (LC)?