Article 64/2021

Labour Edge

In terms of s64(1)(c) of the LRA, at least 48 hours’ notice of the commencement of the lockout has to be given, in writing, to the trade union that is a party to the dispute or, if there is no such trade union, the employees, unless the dispute relates to a collective agreement to be concluded in a council, in which case notice must be given to that council.  What is the latest viewpoint of the labour court as to the requirements of a lockout notice, formulated in the National Association of SA Workers obo Members v Kings Hire CC (2019) 30 SALLR 55 (LC)?

In Kings Hire, the labour court adopted the following approach to such issue:

  1. as to the requirements of the notice itself, the only express requirement in s64(1)(c) itself is 48 hours’ prior notice to the trade and/or the employees concerned;
  2. in SA Transport and Allied Workers Union and Others v Moloto NO and Another (2012) 33 ILJ 2549 (CC), at paragraph [86], it was held that the only certainty required to be reflected in a strike notice is when the strike will start; and
  3. in the labour court’s view, this equally applied to a lockout notice. There is, however, the proviso that if there is a trade union, the lock out notice only has to be given to the trade union and not to the employees.

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).