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

The previous article dealt with the distinction between misconduct constituting desertion and misconduct constituting abscondment – see, further, in this regard, Okhahlamba Local Municipality v Mabuya (2021) 32 SALLR 12 (LC).

In this article, what we attempt to do is provide some clarity as to a very different misconduct, namely, the misconduct of deeming desertion.

What is the difference between desertion and abscondment?

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?