Article 7/2024

LabourEdge

Is it permissible for an employer, when misconduct occurs, to dismiss employees on the basis of operational requirements?

_____________________________________

  • Both the labour appeal court (e g Chauke v Leeson Motors (1998) 19 ILJ 1441 (LAC)) and the labour court (SAMWU v City of Cape Town (2011) 22 SALLR 145 (LC)) have considered whether it is permissible for an employer to dismiss employees on the basis of an operational rationale for collective misconduct.
  • From the aforesaid judgments, it is apparent that, subject to certain safeguards to be implemented and rather tricky questions to be answered, it is permissible to dismiss a group of employees if misconduct is proven but the actual perpetrators not pinpointed.
  • The justification for such dismissal, on the basis of a commercial rationale, has been formulated as follows: ‘The necessity to save the life of the enterprise.’ – apparently, on this basis, the dismissal of innocent workers is justified.
  • n the Cashbuild judgment, the labour appeal court specifically makes reference to the difficulties to be encountered by following the above approach, as set out, inter alia, in FAWU v Premier Foods (2012) 33 ILJ 1779 (LAC) – in brief, these difficulties entail the application of the principles relating to a fault (i e misconduct) scenario to a faultless (i e no intention or negligence) scenario, being dismissal for operational requirements; and the factors to be taken into account in determining and applying the selection criteria justifying the dismissal of the innocent employees.
July 3, 2025

Is it a requirement that each page of an affidavit must be initialled? Is it a requirement that every page of every annexure to an affidavit must be initialled?

June 26, 2025

The first leg of the test to determine whether or not urgency exists, when an urgent application is brought, requires a court to assess whether an urgent hearing is necessary because the applicant will not be able to obtain substantial redress in the normal course.

June 19, 2025

Previous articles this year dealt with a zero-tolerance policy when tested positively for alcohol or drugs, as well as a zero-tolerance policy in respect of having tested positive for cannabis. In short, the courts hold the viewpoint that, by means of such policies, an employer is not permitted to create an absolute ‘no go zone’ and, furthermore, held that, at all given times, one of the fundamental questions to be asked, irrespective of the content of such zero-tolerance policy, is the effect of the drugs/alcohol/cannabis on the ability of the employee to do his/her job.