Rethinking Fair Processes for Dealing with Poor Conduct in the Workplace

Rethinking Fair Processes for Dealing with Poor Conduct in the Workplace

Authors Chris Todd & Nikita Reddy

ISSN: 2413-9874
Affiliations: Partner, Bowmans; Business Partner, Ninety One, formerly Senior Associate, Bowmans
Source: Industrial Law Journal, Volume 45 Issue 2, 2024, p. 720 – 738
https://doi.org/10.47348/ILJ/v45/i2a3

Abstract

Nearly three decades after the legislature enacted the 1995 Labour Relations Act with its accompanying Code of Good Practice: Dismissal, and two decades after the Labour Court made it clear, in Avril Elizabeth, that a formal enquiry is not a necessary element of fair procedure before dismissal, formal adversarial criminal justice style disciplinary processes continue to be regarded as the norm in many workplaces.
This article explores why this is so. It considers whether formal adversarial processes are fairer to employees than informal ones (it concludes that they are not). It identifies challenges with formal processes in the workplace against criteria of efficiency, authority and fairness, and revisits the basic purpose of workplace discipline and the principles that apply.
Finally it puts forward some practical suggestions on an inquisitorial investigation process for dealing with workplace discipline that the authors believe is more appropriate and fair (to both employers and employees) and is better suited to most modern workplaces. It concludes that less formal investigation and decision-making processes of this kind are more efficient for employers, preserve workplace relations, and are ultimately better for employees than their adversarial counterparts.

A Delicate Balancing Act: Does the Majoritarianism Approach in South African Labour Law Infringe the Right to Freedom of Association?

A Delicate Balancing Act: Does the Majoritarianism Approach in South African Labour Law Infringe the Right to Freedom of Association?

Author Phatelang William Senoamadi

ISSN: 2413-9874
Affiliations: Senior Lecturer, Graduate School of Business Leadership (Unisa); BA, MA (Wits); LLB, MBL (Unisa); PhD (UJ)
Source: Industrial Law Journal, Volume 45 Issue 2, 2024, p. 739 – 757
https://doi.org/10.47348/ILJ/v45/i2a4

Abstract

The article investigates freedom of association rights for trade unions in the context of the majoritarian approach contained in the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995. It reveals that even in the context of majoritarianism, the labour courts and the Constitutional Court have asserted and indeed protected freedom of association rights by interpreting the law to support the granting of certain organisational rights to minority unions. This notwithstanding, the courts’ approach does not automatically translate into the right to bargain on matters of mutual interest. Furthermore, it is acceptable through ministerial determinations to extend collective agreements reached with the majority union to members of the minority union to a point where the minority union would be precluded from embarking on a strike action on issues that are dealt with in the applicable collective agreement. The article concludes that our courts have by and large succeeded in performing a delicate balancing of the competing notion of majoritarianism and the right to freedom of association.

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)

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

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

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

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.