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
April 30, 2025

The purpose of this article is to highlight some of the principles underlying the legal position that the admission of trade union members outside such trade union’s scope is ultra vires and invalid.

April 25, 2025

How did the labour court, in Simunye Workers Forum v Registrar of Labour Relations, per Van Niekerk J, in terms of s111(3) of the LRA, on appeal, deal with the decision of the registrar refusing the application of the aforesaid trade union?

April 20, 2025

How do procedural fairness requirements relating to dismissals based upon misconduct (as well as incapacity), contained in the 1995 LRA, differ from the environment that preceded this Act?