Article 64/2022

What is the content of the common purpose doctrine in the misconduct environment?

_____________________________________

The following principles can be extracted from Chauke v Leeson Motors (1998) 19 ILJ 144 (LAC); FAWU v Amalgamated Beverage Industries (1994) 15 ILJ 1057 (LAC); SAMWU v City of Cape Town (2011) 22 SALLR 145 (LC):

  • the doctrine of common purpose is applicable where the misconduct is proved but the actual perpetrators are not identified
  • when applying the doctrine of common purpose, the employer knows that there are innocent employees, but there is no evidence as to the actual perpetrator(s)
  • there are two kinds of justification for the dismissal of such innocent employees, namely:
  • an operational justification, where it is necessary to save the ‘life of the enterprise’ or
  • where there is no operational justification but sufficient grounds exist for inferring that the entire group is responsible or involved in the misconduct – a collective motive is therefore inferred from the action of the entire group and the onus is on the employees in the group to absolve themselves
October 10, 2024

What approach did the constitutional court recently adopt, in NUMSA v Trenstar (Pty) Ltd (2023) 44 ILJ 1189 (CC)?

October 3, 2024

Is an employer entitled to rely on s68(1)(b) of the LRA to claim compensation for losses suffered during a protected strike/lockout?

September 26, 2024

In the scenario where an employer was not permitted to trade during the Covid-19 lockdown (i e hard lockdown), are the employees, who could not tender their services lawfully, entitled to their normal benefits, such as leave and bonus benefits?