Transcript Slide 1

CURRENT LABOUR LAW 2009
HALTON CHEADLE
PETER LE ROUX
CLIVE THOMPSON
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYMENT LAW
PETER LE ROUX
HIGHLIGHTS
•
Latest decisions dealing with contract principles
•
Automatic expiry of fixed term contracts
•
Inconsistency
•
Suspensions
•
Transfers
CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS : THREE
TYPES OF CLAIMS
•
“Ordinary” contractual claims – eg. a claim for a salary.
•
Contractual rights arising from the incorporation of employer
policies and procedures incorporating principles of fairness.
•
"New" contractual rights derived from the Constitutional right
to fair labour practices.
CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS : THREE
QUESTIONS
•
•
•
Should the courts develop common law contract principles to
reflect principles of fairness and the Constitutional right to fair
labour practices?
Is there a concurrent jurisdiction to hear contractual claims
arising from the contract of employment ie do the High Court
and the Labour Court both have the jurisdiction to consider
contractual claims or is this the sole preserve of the Labour
Court?
Should contractual claims be permitted at all or at least not
be permitted where they overlap with the statutory rights?
DEVELOPING COMMON LAW CONTRACT
PRINCIPLES
Should the courts develop common law contract principles
to reflect principles of fairness and the Constitutional right to
fair labour practices?
Mogothle v Premier of the North West Province and Another
[2009] 4 BLLR 331 (LC) – recognition of a contractual right not to
be unfairly suspended.
DEVELOPING COMMON LAW CONTRACT
PRINCIPLES (Cont …)
"As controversial as the judgments in Gumbi, Boxer Superstores
and Murray, supra, might be as a matter of law or policy, they
unequivocally acknowledge a common law contractual obligation
on an employer to act fairly in its dealings with employees. This
obligation has both a substantive and a procedural dimension. In
determining the nature and extent of the mutual obligation of fair
dealing as between employer and employee, the court must be
guided by the unfair dismissal and unfair labour practice
jurisprudence developed over the years.
DEVELOPING COMMON LAW CONTRACT
PRINCIPLES (Cont …)
If any "dual stream" jurisprudence emerges as a consequence
and if this represents an undesirable outcome from a policy
perspective, that is a matter for the Legislature to resolve. Finally,
if an employer acts in breach of its contractual obligation of fair
dealing, the affected employee may seek to enforce a contractual
remedy which may, by virtue of section 77(3) of the BCEA, be
sought in this Court."
(At paragraph 30)
DEVELOPING COMMON LAW CONTRACT
PRINCIPLES (Cont …)
Should the courts develop common law contract principles
to reflect principles of fairness and the Constitutional right to
fair labour practices?
Mohlaka v Minister of Finance and Others [2009] 4 BLLR 348
(LC) – there should be no such development.
IS THERE A CONCURRENT CONTRACTUAL
JURISDICTION?
Yes – there is such a jurisdiction.
Makhanya v University of Zululand [2009] 8 BLLR 721 (LC),
Transman (Pty) Ltd v Dick and Another [2009] 7 BLLR 629 (SCA),
Mogothle v Premier of the North West Province and Another
[2009] 4 BLLR 331 (LC), Tsika v Buffalo City Municipality [2009] 3
BLLR
272 (E) and Hendriks v Cape Peninsula University of
Technology and Others (2009) 30 ILJ 1229 (C).
IS THERE A CONCURRENT CONTRACTUAL
JURISDICTION?
No – there is not.
Mohlaka v Minister of Finance and Others [2009] 4 BLLR 348 (LC
and
Nomzamo Cleaning Services Co-Operative v Appie and
Others (2008) 29 ILJ 2168 (E).
IS THERE A CONCURRENT CONTRACTUAL
JURISDICTION?
But see :
Gcaba v Minister for Safety and Security and Others CCT64/08
[2009] ZACC 26 where it appears that the High Court’s contractual
jurisdiction was confirmed.
SHOULD CONTRACTUAL CLAIMS
EXIST AT ALL?
•
MEC for the Department of Health, Eastern Cape v Odendaal
and Others [2009] 5 BLLR 470 (LC)
•
Mohlaka v Minister of Finance and Others [2009] 4 BLLR 348
(LC)
REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
•
Specific Performance – in the case of an employee
reinstatement.
•
Damages – limited to the wages payable until the expiry of a
fixed term contract or wages payable for the period of notice.
•
See Adv Alec Freund SC “Contractual remedies for
Dismissed Employees” Paper presented to the 2009
SASLAW Conference.
MEASURING DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF
CONTRACT
•
SA Music Rights Organisation Ltd v Mphatsoe [2009] 7 BLLR
696 (LC)
•
Labournet Payment Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Vosloo (Unreported
J1086/08 7/8/2009)
•
Jafta v Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife [2008] 10 BLLR 954 (LC)
DEFINTION OF EMPLOYEE
Louw v African National Congress (2009) 18 CCMM 1.1.1 –
municipal councillor not an employee of the political party he
or she represents. Appointment governed by the Local
Government: Municipal Structures Act, 117 0f 1998.
SITUATIONS WHERE THERE IS NO
EXPLICIT DISMISSAL BY THE EMPLOYER
Marneweck v SEESA SA Ltd [2009] 7 BLLR 669 (LC)
"[31]
I align myself with the view expressed by Van Niekerk
AJ above and wish to add that the enquiry into whether
or not there is a dismissal goes beyond investigating
whether the employer used the word "dismissal" in
terminating the employment relationship with the
employee. In other words, it is not the label placed on
the termination that determined whether or not there
was a dismissal.
SITUATIONS WHERE THERE IS NO
EXPLICIT DISMISSAL BY THE EMPLOYER
[32]
Thus, as a matter of principle, an employment contract
can be regarded as terminated based on the objective
construction of the employer’s conduct which
unequivocally repudiates the contract."
See also SA Post Office Ltd v Mampeule [2009] 8 BLLR 792 (LC)
and Advancenet (Pty) Ltd v Kropf (2009)28 ILJ 1062 (LC)
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT
DURING PERIOD OF NOTICE
IBSA obo Rabin v Old Mutual Life Assurance Co SA Ltd [2008] 12
BALR 1204 (CCMA)
Hlela v Richards Bay Coal Terminal Co Ltd (2009) 30 ILJ 441
(CCMA)
AUTOMATIC TERMINATION
OF EMPLOYMENT
SA Post Office Ltd v Mampeule [2009] 8 BLLR 792 (LC)
"[28]
I do not agree. In my view any act by the employer
which results, directly or indirectly, in the termination of
the employee's contract of employment constitutes a
dismissal within the meaning of section 186(1)(a). That
is why the LRA recognises the concept of constructive
dismissal (section 186(1)(e) of the LRA). I do not want
to be understood as saying what happened here
constitutes a constructive dismissal. I am not saying
that.
AUTOMATIC TERMINATION
OF EMPLOYMENT (Cont …)
SA Post Office Ltd v Mampeule [2009] 8 BLLR 792 (LC)
The point I make is that a dismissal does not come
about only when the employer tells the employee "you
are fired". Thus, when the Minister removed the
respondent from the applicant's board of directors,
thereby triggering an automatic and simultaneous
termination of his contract of employment with the
applicant, she effectively dismissed him. With that there
can be no quarrel."
AUTOMATIC TERMINATION
OF EMPLOYMENT (Cont …)
SA Post Office Ltd v Mampeule [2009] 8 BLLR 792 (LC)
"[45]
The effective cause of termination of the respondent's
contract of employment was clearly the Minister's
removal of him from the applicant's board of directors.
The automatic termination clause is impermissible and
cannot rightly be invoked to stave off the clear and
unambiguous effect of the Minister's overt act.
AUTOMATIC TERMINATION
OF EMPLOYMENT (Cont …)
SA Post Office Ltd v Mampeule [2009] 8 BLLR 792 (LC)
"[46]
In the result, the automatic termination provisions of
article 8.3, which regulates the termination of the
contract of employment and is thus incorporated by
reference therein, are impermissible in their truncation
of the provisions of chapter 8 of the LRA and, possibly
even, the concomitant constitutional right to fair labour
practices (cf Igby v Johnson Matthey Chemicals Ltd
[1986] IRLR 215 (CA)).
AUTOMATIC TERMINATION
OF EMPLOYMENT (Cont …)
SA Post Office Ltd v Mampeule [2009] 8 BLLR 792 (LC)
Provisions of this sort, militating as they do against
public policy by which statutory rights conferred on
employees are for the benefit of all employees and not
just an
individual,
are
incapable of consensual
validation between parties to a contract by way of
waiver of the rights so conferred."
AUTOMATIC TERMINATION OF
EMPLOYMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF
LABOUR BROKERS
Sindane v Prestige Cleaning Services (unreported JS 594/07
27/08/09)
SECTION 20 OF THE MINE HEALTH AND
SAFETY ACT
Section 20(1) : An employee may appeal to the Medical Inspector
against a decision that an employee is unfit to perform any
particular category of work.
Section 20(7) : An employee lodging an appeal may not be
dismissed on any grounds relating to unfitness to perform work
pending the outcome of the appeal.
AUTOMATICALLY UNFAIR DISMISSALS:
SECTIONS 187(1) AND 187(1)(d)
Seaward v Securicor SA (Pty) Ltd (JA 68/06 )
Dismissal
because
employee
lodged
a
grievance
and
represented a fellow employee at a disciplinary enquiry –
automatically unfair dismissal.
INCONSISTENCY OF TREATMENT
SATAWU and Others v Ikhwezi Bus Service (Pty) Ltd [2008] 10
BLLR 995 (LC)
•
An employer is entitled to impose different penalties on
different employees for the same act of misconduct provided
that there is a fair and objective basis for doing so.
•
The nature and extent of prior disciplinary sanctions imposed
can legitimately form the basis for differentiation in penalty.
•
However, prior warnings for individual misconduct cannot be
taken into account when considering the appropriate sanction
for collective misconduct.
INCONSISTENCY OF TREATMENT
Southern Sun Hotel Interests (Pty) Ltd v CCMA and Others
(Unreported JR 243/05 24 July 2009)
•
Two forms of inconsistency - historical and contemporaneous.
•
Inconsistency has a subjective and an objective element.
•
Subjective element - an inconsistency challenge will fail if the
employer did not know of misconduct allegedly committed.
•
Objective element – there must be a comparator in the form of
a “similarly circumstanced” employee. This is the most
controversial component of the test.
INCONSISTENCY OF TREATMENT
Southern Sun Hotel Interests (Pty) Ltd v CCMA and Others
(Unreported JR 243/05 24 July 2009)
•
An inconsistency challenge will fail if the employer is able to
differentiate between the relevant employees on the basis,
inter alia, of difference in personal circumstances, the severity
of the misconduct or on the basis of other material
circumstances.
•
An employee cannot profit from a manifestly wrong decision in
the name of inconsistency.
•
An employer is entitled to “reinstate” a particular rule relating to
sanction in the event of an incorrect application of discipline.
PROVING FAIRNESS OF THE DISMISSAL
EDCON Ltd v Pillemer NO (191/2008) [2009] ZASCA 135
•
The employer must lead evidence to show that dismissal is
justified.
•
The evidence should come from the employee’s manager.
UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES –
SUSPENSIONS
Mogothle v Premier of the North West Province and Another
[2009] 4 BLLR 331 (LC)
•
The employer must have justifiable reasons to believe that,
prima facie at least, the employee has engaged in serious
misconduct.
•
That there is some objectively justifiable reason to deny
employees access to the workplace based on the integrity of
any pending investigation into misconduct
or some other
relevant factor that would place the investigation or the
interests of affected parties in jeopardy.
UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES –
SUSPENSIONS (Cont …)
Mogothle v Premier of the North West Province and Another [2009]
4 BLLR 331 (LC)
•
The employee must be given an opportunity to state a case
before the employer makes any decision to suspend an
employee.
See also Sappi Forests (Pty) Ltd v CCMA and Others [2009] 3
BLLR 254 (LC)
UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES –
DEMOTIONS AND TRANSFERS
Nxele v Chief Deputy Commissioner, Department of Correctional
Services [2008] 12 BLLR 1179 (LAC)
•
A transfer can be an unfair labour practice when it constitutes a
demotion.
•
Demotion can occur even if the employee's rank and
remuneration are not affected. The status, prestige and
responsibilities of the new post are also relevant.
UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES –
DEMOTIONS AND TRANSFERS (Cont …)
Nxele v Chief Deputy Commissioner, Department of Correctional
Services [2008] 12 BLLR 1179 (LAC)
"[89]
The appellant also did not consent to such demotion. In
terms of the common law, a demotion without the
employee's consent is unlawful. In terms of the LRA, the
demotion of an employee without his consent would be
unfair. That means that the transfer of an employee which
constitutes a demotion is not in accordance with the LRA
and, therefore, is contrary to the provision of section 96(2)
and (3) of CSA and, therefore, unlawful.
UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES –
DEMOTIONS AND TRANSFERS (Cont …)
Nxele v Chief Deputy Commissioner, Department of Correctional
Services [2008] 12 BLLR 1179 (LAC)
At any rate, to the extent that the CSA or the PSA may permit
the demotion of an employee by his employer without his
consent, it would be in conflict with the LRA, which does not
allow that, and in terms of section 210 of the LRA, the LRA
would prevail over the PSA or the CSA."
UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES –
DEMOTIONS AND TRANSFERS (Cont …)
Nxele v Chief Deputy Commissioner, Department of Correctional
Services [2008] 12 BLLR 1179 (LAC)
"[90]
Furthermore, the decision to transfer the appellant to the
position of Area Co-Ordinator: Corrections, Pollsmoor
was made without the appellant being consulted first or
being given an opportunity to be heard. That is fatal to the
transfer and renders it invalid, void and of no legal effect."