Repositioning Sexual Harassment: Integration and Objectivity as Guiding Principles in the ILO Convention 190 and the Draft Code against Violence and Harassment in the World of Work

Repositioning Sexual Harassment: Integration and Objectivity as Guiding Principles in the ILO Convention 190 and the Draft Code against Violence and Harassment in the World of Work

Authors Debbie Collier & Monique Carels

ISSN: 2413-9874
Affiliations: Associate Professor, Department of Commercial Law, Institute of Development and Labour
Law, University of Cape Town; Lecturer, Department of Commercial Law, University of Cape Town
Source: Industrial Law Journal, Volume 42 Issue 2, 2021, p. 692 – 708

Abstract

Currently, sexual harassment in the workplace is treated as an exceptional form of unfair discrimination on the basis of sex, gender or sexual orientation; and more generally, harassment, if it is based on a listed or analogous ground, is treated as a form of discrimination, which is prohibited in terms of the Employment Equity Act. In recent developments, the International Labour Organisation’s Convention on Violence and Harassment in the World of Work 190 of 2019 and South Africa’s Draft Code of Good Practice on the Prevention and Elimination of Violence and Harassment in the World of Work of 2020 introduce the term ‘violence and harassment’ as an organising concept for the many forms of unacceptable behaviour in the workplace that cause, or are likely to cause, harm (physical, psychological, sexual or economic). While the concept of ‘violence and harassment’ includes sexual harassment, it is not limited to conduct that amounts to discrimination. In addition to prohibiting forms of violence and harassment, Convention 190 requires the adoption of an inclusive, integrated and gender-responsive approach for the prevention and elimination of violence and harassment in the world of work. In this article we consider the implications of these developments for South Africa. In particular we argue that the current legal framework establishes a fragmented and complex system for resolving sexual harassment disputes; and we consider the impact on this system if the organising concept of violence and harassment were to be adopted, with violence and harassment prohibited within an inclusive and integrated approach. We caution that, in the absence of carefully crafted legislative revisions to the current legal framework, the system may become even more complex and fragmented.

The Dependent Contractor: A Missing Piece in the SITA Test and the Definition of Employee in the LRA

The Dependent Contractor: A Missing Piece in the SITA Test and the Definition of Employee in the LRA

Author Tumo C Maloka & Chuks Okpaluba

ISSN: 2413-9874
Affiliations: Associate Professor, School of Law, University of Limpopo; Professor and Research Fellow, Centre for Human Rights, University of Free State
Source: Industrial Law Journal, Volume 42 Issue 2, 2021, p. 709 – 727

Abstract

A missing piece of the puzzle in the three-fold SITA test for determining the existence of an employment relationship as well as a lacuna in the statutory definition of an ‘employee’ in s 213 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA) have arguably failed to receive sufficient scholarly, judicial and legislative attention. The three-fold SITA test refined by Benjamin and endorsed by judicial practitioners draws attention to the importance of distinguishing personal dependence from economic dependence. The absence of a dependent contractor category in the LRA renders the SITA test an imprecise tool for tackling the fine margins of self-employment. If the statutory definition of an ‘employee’ were amended to include a ‘dependent contractor’, protection would be extended to persons who have some of the trappings of the independent contractor, but, in reality, are in a position of economic dependence, analogous to that of a subordinate employee. The dependent contractor category accords well with the goals of labour regulation in terms of promoting countervailing power.

Case Note: Determining the Correct Role for the Concept of Dignity in Unfair Discrimination Claims: A Discussion of Naidoo & others v Parliament of the Republic of SA (2020) 41 ILJ 1931 (LAC):

Case Note: Determining the Correct Role for the Concept of Dignity in Unfair Discrimination Claims: A Discussion of Naidoo & others v Parliament of the Republic of SA (2020) 41 ILJ 1931 (LAC)

Author Muyenga Edward Mugerwa-Sekawabe

ISSN: 2413-9874
Affiliations: Graduate LLB Student (University of Cape Town), Justice Dikgang Moseneke Fellow, Legal Writing Center Tutor (University of Cape Town)
Source: Industrial Law Journal, Volume 42 Issue 2, 2021, p. 728 – 735

Abstract

This note considers the dispute regarding the correct interpretation of s 6 of the Employment Equity Act through an examination of the Labour Appeal Court’s decision in Naidoo & others v Parliament of the Republic of SA (2020) 41 ILJ 1931 (LAC). It concludes that the phrase ‘any other arbitrary ground’ of unfair discrimination should be interpreted narrowly by the courts. The note, through examining the Constitutional Court’s decision in Hugo, illustrates that the requirement of the impairment of dignity in cases of unfair discrimination lacks credibility and should, therefore, be rejected. An alternative approach to establishing unfair discrimination is proposed that follows from the ‘correct’ interpretation of Hugo. Lastly, this alternative approach is applied to the facts in Naidoo to demonstrate that the Labour Appeal Court erred in its decision.

Note: Discrimination on an ‘Arbitrary Ground’ and the Right of Access to Justice

Note: Discrimination on an ‘Arbitrary Ground’ and the Right of Access to Justice

Author Darcy du Toit

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

Abstract

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.

Note: The Impact of the Fourth Industrial Revolution on Workplace Law and Employment in South Africa

Note: The Impact of the Fourth Industrial Revolution on Workplace Law and Employment in South Africa

Authors Lindani Nxumalo & Carol Nxumalo

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

Abstract

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.

Note: Sanctity of Contract Prevails Over Force Majeure: The Brand Kitchen Judgment

Note: Sanctity of Contract Prevails Over Force Majeure: The Brand Kitchen Judgment

Author Richard S Bradstreet

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

Abstract

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.