Skip to main content

Article 4/2024

LabourEdge

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.
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?