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).