Skip to main content

Article 50/2024

LabourEdge

What is the test for unfair discrimination formulated in Harksen v Lane and consistently applied subsequently by the various courts, including, recently, Premier FMCG (Pty) Ltd t/a Blue Ribbon Bakery v FAWU (2022) 33 SALLR 277 (LC); (2022) 43 ILJ 1584 (LC)?

_____________________________________

Step 1

  • Step 1 entails answering the question as to whether the act or omission differentiates between people or categories of people – a negative answer means that no discrimination has taken place and a positive answer permits the investigation to move to step 2.

Step 2

  • This step entails answering the question as to whether or not the differentiation amounts to discrimination.
  • If the differentiation is on a listed ground, discrimination has been established.
  • On the other hand, if the discrimination is on a non-listed ground, such ground must show attributes or characteristics with the potential to impair human dignity or affect human beings adversely in a comparably serious manner – if same is established, discrimination exists and, if same is not established, then no discrimination exists.

Step 3

  • This step entails answering the question as to whether or not the discrimination is unfair.
  • If the discrimination is on a listed ground, unfairness is presumed – unless the employer proves fairness.
  • If the discrimination is on a non-listed ground, unfairness is to be established – the test is the impact of the discrimination on the complainant and others in a similar position (if there is compliance with the test, then unfair discrimination has been established, but, on the other hand, if there is non-compliance with the test, fair discrimination exists).
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?