Skip to main content

Article 84/2021

Labour Edge

What are the requirements to be met for s158(1)(c) of the LRA to be applicable (dealing with the jurisdiction of the labour court) to make an arbitration award or settlement agreement an order of court?

The labour appeal court, in Greeff v Consol Glass (Pty) Ltd (2013) 34 ILJ 2835 (LAC), at paragraph [19], held as follows:

‘It is thus clear from a reading of s158(1A) that s158(1)(c) must be read with and subject to s158(1A). Even though s158(1)(c) refers to “any settlement agreement” this cannot be taken to mean, literally, “any” settlement agreement.  Section 158(1A) describes what settlement agreements are being referred to in s158(1)( c). So properly interpreted, in terms of s158(1)(c), read with s158(1A), the Labour Court may make any arbitration award an order of court and may only make settlement agreements, which comply with the criteria stated in s158(1A), orders of court. A settlement agreement that may be made an order of court by the Labour Court in terms of s158(1)(c), must (i) be in writing, (ii) be in settlement of a dispute (i.e. it must have as its genesis a dispute); (iii) the dispute must be one that the party has a right to refer to arbitration, or to the Labour Court for adjudication, in terms of the LRA; and (iv) the dispute must not be of the kind that a party is only entitled to refer to arbitration in terms of s22(4), or s74(4) or s75(7).’

August 17, 2026

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?

August 10, 2026

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?

August 3, 2026

Where do delictual claims fit into dispute resolution options applicable to employment disputes?