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.