Skip to main content

Article 66/2022

What is the difference between a lockout and a shut-out?

_____________________________________

  • The definition of a ‘lockout’, in terms of s213 of the LRA, read together with the definition of ‘issue in dispute’, entails the exclusion by an employer of employees from the employer’s workplace with the purpose of compelling such employees to accept a demand by the employer in respect of a matter of mutual interest between the employer and the employees
  • however, a lockout is to be differentiated from a shut-out referred to by Zondo JP (as he then was) in Technikon SA v National Union of  Technikon Employees of SA (2001) 22 ILJ 427 (LAC), where, at paragraph [16] of the judgment, the court noted that an employer has the right at common law to refuse employees entry onto the workplace where the purpose of their coming onto the workplace is not to perform their duties – such an exclusion is not a lockout as defined in s213, as set out above, and is also not unlawful: it is simply the employer exercising its common law right

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?