ISBN: 978 1 48513 911 9
Affiliations: LLB LLM (Wits) LLM (NWU) PhD (UCT); Associate Professor, School of Law, University of the Witwatersrand
Source: Yearbook of South African Law, Volume 2, p. 1015 – 1051
ISBN: 978 1 48513 911 9
Affiliations: LLB LLD (Stell) LLM (UP); Research fellow at the Department of Public Law, Stellenbosch
University and fellow at the South African Research Chair in Property Law (SARCPL)
Source: Yearbook of South African Law, Volume 2, p. 1052 – 1095
ISSN: 2413-9874
Affiliations: Emeritus Professor and Coordinator, Labour Law 4.0 niche area, University of the Western Cape
Source: Industrial Law Journal, Volume 42 Issue 1, 2021, p. 1 – 15
In Naidoo & others v Parliament of the Republic of SA the Labour Appeal Court interpreted ‘arbitrary ground’ in s 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act by rejecting a ‘broad’ interpretation (ie the grammatical meaning of the term) and defining it ‘narrowly’ to mean the same as an ‘unlisted’ ground of discrimination. Looking at the judgment through the lens of access to justice, the note observes that the judgment raises a number of questions. These include: (a) the purpose of the amendment to s 6(1) by which ‘arbitrary ground’ was added; (b) the relationship between the concepts of ‘arbitrary ground’ in s 6(1) and s 187(1)(f) of the Labour Relations Act; (c) the application of the principles of legal interpretation to ‘arbitrary ground’; (d) the implications and limits of a ‘broad’ interpretation; (e) the social dimension of the constitutional context; (f) whether discrimination on an ‘arbitrary ground’ is by definition invasive of human dignity; (g) whether a ‘narrow’ interpretation of ‘arbitrary ground’ involves reading an implicit limitation into s 6(1); and case law in which a ‘broad’ approach was adopted. The note seeks to address these questions.
ISSN: 2413-9874
Affiliations: Attorney; Honorary Research Fellow, School of Law, University of KwaZulu-Natal; PhD (UKZN); PhD Candidate (UKZN); B Admin (UKZN), B Com Hons (UNISA), M Com (UKZN)
Source: Industrial Law Journal, Volume 42 Issue 1, 2021, p. 16 – 25
The rapid technological changes engendered by the fourth industrial revolution necessitate the need for workplaces to re-examine current strategies to ensure that they benefit from the opportunities presented by advanced technology while minimising any risk associated with it. It further requires legislative reform to prepare for technological changes that are associated with the fourth industrial revolution in the workplace. This note explores how technology should be integrated into the world of work but with sound labour relations being maintained. Additionally, it calls for employment law reform consistent with technological advancement and the values of the Constitution.
ISSN: 2413-9874
Affiliations: Senior Lecturer in Commercial Law, University of Cape Town
Source: Industrial Law Journal, Volume 42 Issue 1, 2021, p. 26 – 33
Employment depends on the continued success of a commercial endeavour, but the profit objective of businesses must give way to the recognition of contractual obligations to employees. Where a change in commercial circumstances gives rise to an inability to operate at a profit, the law of contract mandates that employment obligations must be fulfilled in circumstances falling short of an absolute inability to perform. The Brand Kitchen judgment illustrates the law’s strong recognition of the sanctity of contracts, and the importance of legislative frameworks for restructuring that allow for a departure from strict common law rules relating to impossibility of performance.