Skip to main content

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)

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?

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?

Where do delictual claims fit into dispute resolution options applicable to employment disputes?