Article 40/2022

What is the distinction between s50(2)(a) compensation and s50(2)(b) damages of the EEA and compensation when an automatically unfair dismissal, in terms of s187(1)(f) of the LRA, occurs?


In BMW (SA) (Pty) Ltd v NUMSA (2020) 31 SALLR 119 (LAC), (2020) 41 ILJ 1877 (LAC), the following approach was adopted:

LRA: automatically unfair dismissal in terms of s187(1)(f)

  • compensation is to be calculated in terms of s194(3): it must be just and equitable in all circumstances but no more than 24 months’ remuneration

EEA: unfair discrimination in terms of s6

  • a damages claim for actual/potential monetary loss (patrimonial/pecuniary loss)
  • as well as a compensation claim for non-patrimonial loss – in essence, a solatium

SA Airways (Pty) Ltd v Janse van Vuuren (2014) 35 ILJ 2774 (LAC)

On what basis will a client of a labour broker be held vicariously liable for the injuries suffered by an employee employed by a labour broker when such employee performs functions at the client’s workplace?

Is an employer vicariously liable where its employee is sexually harassed by a superior employee?

It is well-established that an employer is vicariously liable (faultlessly liable) for the wrong committed by an employee during the course/scope/sphere of employment (Feldman v Mall 1945 AD 733).