Article 42/2023

From article 41/2023, it is evident that a successful applicant in terms of an unfair discrimination claim (evaluated in terms of the EEA) is entitled to both compensation and damages, whereas, if the claim was considered in terms of the LRA (on the basis of being an automatically unfair dismissal in terms of s187(1)(f) of the LRA) the employee would not be entitled to a damages claim.

What is the distinction between compensation and damages awarded in terms of the EEA and compensation awarded for an automatically unfair dismissal in terms of the LRA?

_____________________________________

In BMW (SA) (Pty) Ltd v NUM (2020) 31 SALLR 119 (LAC), the labour appeal court distinguished between the following two scenarios:

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

  • compensation (and not damages) is the appropriate remedy in terms of s194(3) of the LRA
  • such compensation is required to be just and equitable under all circumstances but, in any case, must amount to no more than 24 months’ remuneration

unfair discrimination in terms of the EEA (when s6 of the EEA is applicable)

  • firstly, the successful applicant is entitled to a damages claim – for the actual or potential monetary loss (i e patrimonial loss)
  • apart from the damages claim, the successful applicant is also entitled to a compensation claim – as a solatium (non-patrimonial loss) for the insult/humiliation/indignity/hurt, etc suffered

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

July 3, 2025

Is it a requirement that each page of an affidavit must be initialled? Is it a requirement that every page of every annexure to an affidavit must be initialled?

June 26, 2025

The first leg of the test to determine whether or not urgency exists, when an urgent application is brought, requires a court to assess whether an urgent hearing is necessary because the applicant will not be able to obtain substantial redress in the normal course.

June 19, 2025

Previous articles this year dealt with a zero-tolerance policy when tested positively for alcohol or drugs, as well as a zero-tolerance policy in respect of having tested positive for cannabis. In short, the courts hold the viewpoint that, by means of such policies, an employer is not permitted to create an absolute ‘no go zone’ and, furthermore, held that, at all given times, one of the fundamental questions to be asked, irrespective of the content of such zero-tolerance policy, is the effect of the drugs/alcohol/cannabis on the ability of the employee to do his/her job.