Skip to main content

Article 58/2021

Labour Edge

What is the content of the reasonableness requirement to be complied with for a secondary strike to be lawful?


The reasonableness requirement involves a proportionality assessment: the harm caused by the secondary strike to the secondary employer must be in proportion to the harm potentially caused to the primary employer as a consequence of the secondary strike.  In the labour court’s view, this called for an assessment of three key issues:

  1. the effect of the secondary strike on the secondary employer;
  2. the possible direct or indirect effect that the secondary strike may have on the business of the primary employer; and
  3. the proportionality of the harm caused to the primary and secondary employers respectively.

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?