Notes: Strikingly Misconceived: National Union of Metalworkers of SA on behalf of Nganezi & others v Dunlop Mixing & Technical Services (Pty) Ltd & others (Casual Workers Advice Office as Amicus Curiae) (2019) 40 ILJ 1957 (CC)

by | Jan 17, 2024 | ILJ, ILJ V45 I1

Notes: Strikingly Misconceived: National Union of Metalworkers of SA on behalf of Nganezi & others v Dunlop Mixing & Technical Services (Pty) Ltd & others (Casual Workers Advice Office as Amicus Curiae) (2019) 40 ILJ 1957 (CC)

Author Martin Brassey SC

ISSN: 2413-9874
Affiliations: BA (UCT), LLB and HDipTax (Wits), Visiting Professor of Law (Wits), Senior Counsel
Source: Industrial Law Journal, Volume 45 Issue 1, 2024, p. 1 – 24
https://doi.org/10.47348/ILJ/v45/i1a1

Abstract

In this case note I endorse the conclusion reached in Dunlop but quarrel with the reasoning by which it was reached. In particular, I think the treatment of the duty of fidelity, reciprocally owed by each party to the other under the employment contract, was thoroughly misconceived.

Notes: Revisiting Uber Drivers as Employees — Comparing South African and UK Law

by | Jan 17, 2024 | ILJ, ILJ V45 I1

Notes: Revisiting Uber Drivers as Employees — Comparing South African and UK Law

Author André Mukheibir

ISSN: 2413-9874
Affiliations: Professor of Law, Nelson Mandela University; BMus, BJuris, LLB (UPE), BA Hons HDE (Unisa), DIuris (Amsterdam)
Source: Industrial Law Journal, Volume 45 Issue 1, 2024, p. 24 – 41
https://doi.org/10.47348/ILJ/v45/i1a2

Abstract

The UK Supreme Court in the case Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5 recently held that Uber drivers in London were workers for the purposes of inter alia minimum wage regulations. In South Africa, the Labour Court in Uber SA Technology Services (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Public Service & Allied Workers (2018) 39 ILJ 903 (LC) (Uber SA) held that the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) had erred in finding that South African Uber drivers were employees of Uber SA. This note compares the two cases, as well as considering the distinction between ‘employees’, ‘workers’ and ‘independent contractors’.

Notes: Incompatibility in the Workplace as a Ground for Dismissal in South Africa: A Review of Cases

by | Jan 17, 2024 | ILJ, ILJ V45 I1

Notes: Incompatibility in the Workplace as a Ground for Dismissal in South Africa: A Review of Cases

Authors PT Mtunuse & T Ncetezo

ISSN: 2413-9874
Affiliations: Senior Lecturer, School of Law, Walter Sisulu University; Lecturer, Department of Management, Walter Sisulu University
Source: Industrial Law Journal, Volume 44 Issue 4, 2023, p. 41 – 52
https://doi.org/10.47348/ILJ/v45/i1a3

Abstract

Incompatibility occurs in a workplace when an employee does not work amicably with colleagues, fellow employees, and clients. However, in certain circumstances, incompatibility may occur due to the employer’s actions against employees. Incompatibility is not listed as a ground of fair dismissal in the Labour Relations Act (LRA) 66 of 1995, but arises from case law. Incompatibility is classified variously under incapacity, operational requirements, or misconduct. This note aims to investigate circumstances in which an employee may be dismissed for incompatibility at the workplace. A review of cases will be undertaken to expose disparities in courts’ decisions. The authors will recommend that there should be an amendment to s 188(1)(a)(i) of the LRA to include incompatibility as one of the grounds for a fair dismissal for the purpose of ending inconsistencies in our labour law jurisprudence.

The Regulation of Educator Misconduct in Public Schools

by | Jan 14, 2024 | ILJ, ILJ V44 I4

The Regulation of Educator Misconduct in Public Schools

Authors Cecile de Villiers & Christoph Garbers

ISSN: 2413-9874
Affiliations: Postdoctoral Fellow in Law, Stellenbosch University; Associate Professor, Stellenbosch University
Source: Industrial Law Journal, Volume 44 Issue 4, 2023, p. 2079 – 2109
https://doi.org/10.47348/ILJ/v44/i4a1

Abstract

The individual educator and her or his conduct are of central importance to the delivery of a quality basic education. This calls for a clear and co-ordinated response to address and prevent inappropriate educator conduct. Three broad deficiencies in current education legislation are identified. First, legislation provides for two types of educator, two different employers and two different sets of rules applicable to educator conduct in the same workplace. Secondly, the rules regulating the conduct of departmental educators contain an inappropriate legislative distinction between and description of ‘serious misconduct’ and ‘misconduct’, an unnecessary range of sanctions between a final written warning and dismissal and deficiencies in procedure. Thirdly, despite a clear overlap between the responsibilities of the employers of educators and the professional body for education, there is inadequate alignment between their roles, while gaps remain. The analysis relies not only on the provisions of the legislation itself, but also statistics and arbitration awards emanating from the Education Labour Relations Council. We argue that education legislation fosters an inappropriate managerial response to educator misconduct and suggestions for improvement are made.

Workplaces and Bargaining Units: They Co-exist in Practice, but Can They Co-exist in Law?

by | Jan 14, 2024 | ILJ, ILJ V44 I4

Workplaces and Bargaining Units: They Co-exist in Practice, but Can They Co-exist in Law?

Authors Shane Godfrey & Rochelle Le Roux

ISSN: 2413-9874
Affiliations: Honorary Research Associate, Faculty of Law, University of Cape Town; Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Cape Town
Source: Industrial Law Journal, Volume 44 Issue 4, 2023, p. 2110 – 2138
https://doi.org/10.47348/ILJ/v44/i4a2

Abstract

The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA) relies on the broad concept of ‘workplace’ as the basis for both the statutory assertion of organisational rights and its application of majoritarianism. Nonetheless, many recognition agreements continue to adopt ‘bargaining units’ as their reference point. However, when there is a dispute about organisational rights, the limited legislative recognition of bargaining units becomes evident and anomalous. This article, through an historical analysis of the concept of bargaining unit and a review of recent jurisprudence, highlights the disjuncture between a ‘workplace’ as defined in the LRA and ‘bargaining units’ as they exist in many recognition agreements in many workplaces. While arguing that the LRA provides scope for a more nuanced approached to the assertion of organisational rights, legislative amendments providing greater discretion to arbitrators to recognise the realities in the workplace are explored.

Notes: The Deception of Polygraph Testing — As a Test for Deception

by | Jan 14, 2024 | ILJ, ILJ V44 I4

Notes: The Deception of Polygraph Testing — As a Test for Deception

Authors Reynaud Daniels & Jeremy Phillips

ISSN: 2413-9874
Affiliations: BA (University of Cape Town); LLB (University of the Western Cape); Director, Cheadle Thompson & Haysom Inc (CTH); BA LLB (University of Cape Town); LLM (University of Fort Hare); Associate, CTH
Source: Industrial Law Journal, Volume 44 Issue 4, 2023, p. 2139 – 2150
https://doi.org/10.47348/ILJ/v44/i4a3

Abstract

Polygraph testing is a common tool utilised by employers to investigate suspected misconduct and maintain discipline in the workplace. It delivers a definitive answer one way or another on whether a suspected employee is guilty. However, it does not do so accurately or reliably. Experts have estimated that about half of the time, the polygraph returns a false negative, which often leads to disciplinary action, and even dismissal. For this reason, the Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court have warned against the admission of polygraph evidence, and the weight attributed to it. Despite this, commissioners (and occasionally judges) afford polygraph evidence far greater status than deserved or permitted. Its evidential yield is so negligible, and its results so unreliable, that its admission as evidence cannot be justified.