Tag: Labour Appeal Court (LAC)
Recent reminder by courts – respect restraints or pay the price
The South African courts have by and large, consistently upheld an employer’s right to restrain an employee form unfairly competing with a former employer where certain conditions have been met. These include the employer being able to show a protectable interest and a properly drafted restraint.
A settlement concluded in full and final settlement of all matters...
A February 2023 Labour Appeal Court judgment interpreted a settlement agreement that agreed to the “full and final settlement of all matters between” the parties and “in full and final settlement of all and any claims which the parties may have against each other”.
Constitutional Court judgment – the use of replacement labour in response...
On 18 April 2023, the Constitutional Court handed down judgment in National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) v Trenstar (Pty) Ltd (Trenstar). It had to consider the interpretation of section 76(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act (LRA), which prohibits employers from using replacement labour during a lock-out unless the lock-out is in response to a strike.
Collective misconduct and the burden of proof – lessons for employers
The Labour Appeal Court has ruled against an employer's reliance on collective misconduct for shrinkage in an unfair dismissal case, reinforcing the importance of evidence and the burden of proof placed on the employer. The concept of collective misconduct applies when employers address misconduct involving multiple employees.
Delay discipline unnecessarily at your peril
The intolerability of the continuation of the employment relationship can be caused by misconduct other than dishonesty.
Make sound legal decisions, informed by the experience of the past
Those entrusted with rendering justice on any level have a responsibility to ensure that they stay abreast of the latest developments in law. For this reason, judgments, and the precedents they inform, are of vital importance to practitioners of law.
Don’t delay in disciplining employees
In the case of Maepe vs Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration & another (CLL Vol. 17 June 2008) a senior commissioner at the CCMA was brought to a disciplinary hearing on charges of sexual harassment after he professed his love for a receptionist.
Employee dismissed for abusing sick leave to watch rugby
A recent judgement Woolworths v CCMA and others [2021] ZALAC 49 in the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) held that an employee can be fairly dismissed for dishonesty if the employee claims to be ill and then uses sick leave entitlement to attend a sports match.
Lack of disciplinary expertise can prove costly
The cost to the employer can include hearings at CCMA, Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court as well as back pay.
Depression & dismissal
In Legal Aid SA v Jansen (LAC), the employer appealed against the Labour Court’s decision whereby it held that the dismissal of the employee was automatically unfair in terms of section 187(1)(f) of the Labour Relations Act (LRA) and that he had been unfairly discriminated against in terms of section 6 of the Employment Equity Act, on the basis of him suffering from depression.
