1 / 17

T. QOTOYI

CASE LAW UPDATE. T. QOTOYI. The meaning of dismissal –s186(1)(b). Does section 186(1)(b) of the LRA give rise to a reasonable expectation of permanent appointment? University of Pretoria v CCMA [2012] 2 BLLR 164 (LAC) - Employee employed on a series of fixed-term contracts

edythe
Download Presentation

T. QOTOYI

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CASE LAW UPDATE T. QOTOYI

  2. The meaning of dismissal –s186(1)(b) Does section 186(1)(b) of the LRA give rise to a reasonable expectation of permanent appointment? University of Pretoria v CCMA [2012] 2 BLLR 164 (LAC) - Employee employed on a series of fixed-term contracts for three years - Unsuccessfully applied for a permanent position - Employer offered her a further fixed-term contract which she declined

  3. The meaning of dismissal –s186(1)(b) • - • Employee lodging an unfair dismissal claim on the ground that she should have been appointed permanently • According to the Labour Appeal Court a dismissal as contemplated in section 186(1)(b) will only arise if the following two requirements are present: • A reasonable expectation on the part of the employee that a fixed-term contract on the same or similar terms will be renewed • A failure by the employer to renew the contract on the same terms or a failure to renew it at all • Therefore, the section does not give rise to an expectation of permanent • appointment • The Dirks v The University of South Africa [1999] 20 ILJ 1227 (LC) and McInnes v Technicon of Natal [2000] 21 ILJ 1138 (LC) debate finally laid to rest

  4. Constructive dismissal • - • Asra Wine Estate & Hotel (Pty) Ltd v Van Rooyen & Others [2012] 33 ILJ 363 (LC) • In determining whether a dismissal constitutes constructive dismissal the following requirements must be met: • The employee terminated the contract • Continued employment had become intolerable for the employee • The employer must have made continued employment intolerable • Employee elected to resign rather than to attend a disciplinary • hearing • - Employee not constructively dismissed

  5. Existence of employment relationship • Mokhethi v General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council & Others [2012] 33 ILJ 1215 (LC) • - An alleged offer of employment made following false • submission to employer • Peremptory processes prescribed by the Public Service Act • (Proc 103 of 1994) not followed • Applicant reported for work, given uniform appointment • card • The court held that there was no contract and consequently • no employment relationship

  6. Dismissal for misconduct • Transnet Rail Engineering Ltd v Transnet Bargaining Council & Others [2012] 33 ILJ 1481 (LC) • Employee dismissed for unauthorised possession of • employer’s property • Employee raising defence of kleptomania at arbitration • Arbitrator holding that like alcoholism, kleptomania, should • be treated as a form of incapacity • - Dismissal found to be unfair • Award set aside and dismissal found to be fair by the • Labour Court because there was no evidence that the • employee was indeed a kleptomaniac

  7. Consistency • Mphigalale v Safety & Security Sectoral Bargaining Council & Others [2012] 33 ILJ 1464 (LC) • - Employee found guilty of corruption and dismissed • Previously two employees found guilty of corruption • given sanctions short of dismissal • - Previous decisions made in error • - Employer not required to repeat decisions made in error • - Due to the seriousness of misconduct dismissal held to • be fair

  8. Deemed dismissal-s14 of Employment of Educators Act • Mogola v Head of The Department of Education [2012] 6 BLLR 584 (LC) • Discharge of an educator under section 14(1) does not • constitute dismissal as defined in LRA • Employees discharged for being absent from work for more • than 14 days • However, an employer has to consider submissions made • by an employee in terms of section 14(2) • - Employer failed to consider the submissions • - Discharge set aside and employees reinstated

  9. Precautionary suspension • Lebu v Maquassi Hills Local Municipality [2012]4 BLLR 411 (LC) • The employee, a municipal manager, suspended pending a • disciplinary hearing • Suspension not in compliance with the Local Government • Regulations for Senior Managers,2010 • Employee not given an opportunity to make representations • as per the Regulations • The court warns against using precautionary suspension • arbitrarily

  10. [14] “Suspension is a measure that has serious consequences for an employee, and is not a measure that should be resorted to lightly. There appears to be a tendency, especially in the public sector, where suspension is applied as a measure of first resort and almost automatically imposed where any form of misconduct is alleged.” - Suspension set aside and reinstatement ordered

  11. Benefits • Imatu obo Verster v Umhlathuze Municipality (D 644/09) • Employee appointed in an acting capacity on two distinct periods • Not paid an acting allowance for the first period but paid for the • second period • CCMA aligning itself with Hospersa v Northern Cape Provincial • Administration [2000] 21 ILJ 1066 (LC) held that it lacked jurisdiction • as the employee could not prove contractual entitlement to the acting • allowance • The Labour Court held that where an employer regularly exercises a • discretion to provide a non-contractual benefit, such a dispute may be • arbitrated by the CCMA • - An acting allowance can be a benefit even if there is no contractual • entitlement • - However, LAC decision in Hospersa still stands

  12. Polygraph test • Sedibeng District Municipality v South African Local Governing Bargaining Council and Others (JR 1559/09) [2012] • Employees not promoted after failing to pass the polygraph • test • Polygraph test results used as a key criterion for • promotion • No independent evidence showing that the employees • were previously implicated in some wrongdoing, or • corruption • Exclusive reliance on the polygraph test results to eliminate • the employees from promotion held to be unfair

  13. Discrimination • Department of Correctional Services & another v POPCRU • & others[2012] 2 BLLR 110 (LAC) • Male prison employees dismissed for refusing on cultural • and religious grounds to remove dreadlocks • - Female employees not required to remove dreadlocks • Employer failed to show the rational connection between • the instruction and purpose • Dismissal constituting direct discrimination on the grounds • of gender, religion and culture and thus automatically unfair

  14. Res judicata plea • Gauteng Shared Services Centre v Ditsamai[2012] 4 BLLR 328 (LAC) • Employee dismissed after lodging a grievance relating to non- • promotion to a permanent position • - Dismissal unfair and employee awarded compensation • Employee further referring a dispute on the grounds that he had been • overlooked for the permanent position because of unfair discrimination • Employer contending that the matter was res judicata • Court stressing that the requirements for a successful plea of res • judicataare that the same dispute between the same parties involving • the same claim and the same issue of law must already have been • adjudicated by a competent court • - Since this was not the case there was no merit in the employer’s res • judicataplea

  15. Strike • Equity Aviation Services (Pty) Ltd v SATAWU & Others [2012] 3 BLLR 245 (SCA) • Non-union members dismissed for unauthorised • absence from work after joining a protected strike called • by the majority union • Non-union members required to deliver separate strike • notices to the employer • - Failure to do so rendered their strike unprotected • - Dismissal not automatically unfair

  16. BMW SA (Pty)Ltd v National Union of Metalworkers of SA obo members [2012] 33 ILJ 140 (LAC) • Union and the employer concluding a collective • agreement which required the parties to make use of • facilitation in the event of a dispute before embarking on • strike • Only once facilitation had failed would the union be • entitled to strike • Parties not entitled to either follow the agreed procedure • or the statutory procedure in section 64(1) of the LRA

  17. Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa v SATAWU • (J 543/12) • Union demanding that two managerial staff • members of PRASA be suspended • Union also demanding that a forensic investigation • be commissioned • Employer arguing that the first demand was unlawful • and that it had already complied with the second • demand • Strike declared unlawful and unprotected

More Related