Article 9/2024

LabourEdge

By now, it is firmly established that the workplace is governed by both statutory and contractual rights and obligations.

What are the fundamental principles differentiating the aforesaid scenarios?

_____________________________________

Scenario 1: LRA right

  • This is a right to be enforced by an employee (generally excluding an employer) to be found in the LRA – examples are alleged unfair dismissal disputes and alleged unfair labour practice disputes.
  • The claim of the employee is for reinstatement, re-employment or compensation (NUMSA obo Fohlisa v Hendor Mining Supplies (2017) 37 ILJ 1560 (CC).
  • In this regard, depending on the nature of the dispute, the CCMA or the labour court has jurisdiction (see, inter alia, s193, s194 and s195 of the LRA).
  • Essentially, what is challenged in terms of this scenario is the alleged unfair conduct of the employer.

Scenario 2: contractual right

  • This scenario entails a dispute about the alleged breach of a contract, so to be instituted by either the employer or employee.
  • The claim in this regard is for damages, compensation or specific performance (Mahonono v National Heritage Council (2022) 33 SALLR 162 (LC); SAMWU v Tswaing Local Municipality (2022) 33 SALLR 60 (LAC); Greyling v George Randell High School (2023) 34 SALLR 82 (LC).
  • The labour and high courts have concurrent jurisdiction in terms of s77(3), read with s77A(e) of the BCEA
  • In this regard, the unlawful conduct of either the employer or the employee is challenged and not the unfair element of such conduct – in essence, if the alleged breach of contract dispute entails a dismissal without complying with the contractual rights and obligations, the dismissal is to be found unlawful and ab initio void.
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.