LABOUR LAW IN SOUTH AFRICA

28
1 LABOUR LAW LABOUR LAW IN SOUTH AFRICA IN SOUTH AFRICA A PRESENTATION BY VAN DER HEEVER & ASSOCIATES at 08:30 on 12 FEBRUARY 2004 WEBSITE: www.vanderheever.co.za EMAIL: [email protected] TEL: (011) 789 1110 FAX: (011) 787 3955 Note: To view in Full Screen - Right mouse click and select “Full Screen”

description

LABOUR LAW IN SOUTH AFRICA. A PRESENTATION BY VAN DER HEEVER & ASSOCIATES at 08:30 on 12 FEBRUARY 2004. WEBSITE: www.vanderheever.co.za EMAIL: [email protected] TEL: (011) 789 1110 FAX: (011) 787 3955. Note: To view in Full Screen - Right mouse click and select “Full Screen”. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of LABOUR LAW IN SOUTH AFRICA

1

LABOUR LAWLABOUR LAWIN SOUTH AFRICAIN SOUTH AFRICA

A PRESENTATION BY

VAN DER HEEVER & ASSOCIATES

at

08:30

on

12 FEBRUARY 2004

WEBSITE: www.vanderheever.co.zaEMAIL: [email protected]

TEL: (011) 789 1110 FAX: (011) 787 3955

Note: To view in Full Screen - Right mouse click and select “Full Screen”Note: To view in Full Screen - Right mouse click and select “Full Screen”

2

CURRENT LABOUR TRENDS & OUTLOOK

The concepts of job security and social security have gone hand in hand in the

South African Labour market until recently. An employee climbing the corporate

ladder at a large company could expect reasonable job security, decent health

benefits, regular salary increases and a solid retirement package.

The entire principle of job security has been affected by so many factors that that

concept probably needs to be redefined in a South African context. Factors,

which have struck at job-security, are the following:

1.

Globalization: Due to large merger and acquisition activities in transnational

companies, local companies have invariably been affected. International

corporate activity has accounted for many closures of unwanted or unneeded

companies. There has also been the reintroduction of conglomerates that

disinvested in the 80’s and early 90’s e.g. Mobil and General Motors;

2.

The information age has meant a larger scale of access to information so that

"corporate knowledge" is no longer residing exclusively in the "old guard". Due to

the facilitation of information through digitisation, younger employees are

blooming at an earlier stage of their careers, which is nowadays referred to as

the baby-boom era;

3

3.

Health reasons: Workflow pressures, increases in tension levels have had a

debilitating effect on middle aged workers and in many instances burnout and

early redundancies occur;

4.

Corporate Downsizing:

5.

Employment Equity:

6.

Tighter budgets have crimped salary hikes, trimmed health care and other

benefits. In addition, guaranteed pensions i.e. defined benefit schemes are

increasingly being replaced by retirement savings plans (defined contribution

plans) such as individually funded plans often using unit trusts as the underlying

investment. The risk of investment performance has effectively been transferred

to employees.

7.

Introduction of new technology.

8.

Relatively shorter product and services life cycles.

4

SOUTH AFRICAN LABOUR MARKET

The most accurate survey on the extent of employment in both the formal and

informal sectors in the country, is contained in Statistics South Africa's Labour

Force Survey of March 2003.

A total of 11 565 000 people were estimated to be employed in both sectors in

March 2003.

Table A below sets out the labour market statistics as at March 2003:

TABLE A: LABOUR MARKET TRENDS IN MARCH 2003ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL DEFINITION OF UNEMPLOYMENT

95% confidence intervals

Lower Limit('000)

Estimate('000)

UpperLimit

('000)abc

de

Total employedTotal unemployed (official definitionTotal economically active = a + b

Total not economically activeTotal aged 15-65 years = c + d

11 2985 026

16 442

12 37228 964

11 5655 250

16 815

12 74029 555

11 8325 473

17 187

13 10830 145

f Official unemployment rate = b * 100/c 30,2% 31,2% 32,2%

gLabour market participation rate = c *100/e

56,1% 56,9% 57,7%

h Labour absorption rate = a * 100/e 38,4% 39,1% 39,9%

It will be noticed that the official unemployment rate is estimated to be 31,2%.

Note that this figure could be as high as 42,1% if a wide definition is given to

unemployment.

South Africa has 29.6 million people aged between 15 - 65 years of which 16.8

million are economically active, 11.6 million employed and 5.3 million

unemployed.

12.7 million of age group 15-65 are not economically active for various reasons.

5

LABOUR TRENDS IN THE WORKPLACE

Whereas the workplace during the 80's and early 90's was characterised by

stereotype full time employment contract, many employers have resorted to

atypical contracts of employment in order to keep labour costs in check. These

atypical contracts of employment took at least the following forms:

Flexi-time contract

Temporary employment contracts

Fixed term employment contracts

Consultancy agreements

Outsourcing agreements

Employer and/or workplace fragmentation structures.

Each of these contracts are regulated by their own terms. The concept of full

time, permanent employment seems to be giving way to these atypical

agreements.

Negotiation and conclusion of contracts of employment is a highly specialised

field and especially in the field of employing executives for companies, specialist

advice is normally sought before these contracts are concluded. Not enough

time is being spent on negotiating relevant and appropriate terms of employment.

A further trend in the workplace is that employers have sought to contain their

costs of labour by employing employees on a basis of total cost to company.

Apart from its function of cost containment, this type of contract also serves the

purpose of giving the company a full conspectus of its true labour costs. In this

way, companies can more readily quantify their actual labour costs.

Due to the increase in competition, the concept of employee differentiation has,

similar to product differentiation, come to the fore in order to make businesses

more competitive.

6

The business of staff differentiation comes down to sorting out the A, B and C

Players in the workplace. Note the difference in terminology between

differentiation and discrimination. Differentiation is certainly not a form of unfair

discrimination which we will touch upon later in this seminar.

Differentiation is uninfluenced by race, culture or religion. It might be that gender

comes into play. A system of differentiating between A, B and C Players is quite

an acceptable practice in grading employees in a particular workplace. In fact, it

is an essential management function.

A Players possess essentially 4 E's in business - i.e.

high levels of Energy,

the ability to Energise employees, suppliers and customers around them

Edge to make those difficult 50/50 decisions; and

finally, capability of Executing and performing on their commitments.

All these attributes are of course embraced and connected by passion. It is this

element of passion which separates A players from B players. The B's are the

heart and guts of the company and they are critical to its operational success.

They essentially have at least three of the four "E" attributes, and they have the

potential of achieving all four. Employers devote a lot of energy towards

improving these Players into A's. It is the manager's job to convert a B player

into an A player but sometimes it never happens.

C players enervate rather than energise. They procrastinate rather than deliver.

C players are also characterised by poor execution.

7

T h e s y s t e m o f d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n c a n b e d e p i c t e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g g r a p h :

D e a l i n g w i t h t h e b o t t o m 1 0 % , o r C p l a y e r s , i s o n e o f t h e t o u g h e s t t a s k s f o r

m a n a g e r s . A b o u t 3 / 4 ' s o f t h e b o d y o f L a b o u r L a w i s d e v o t e d t o w a r d s t h i s

u n p r o d u c t i v e g r o u p . I t i s t h e r e f o r e l i t t l e w o n d e r t h a t t h e p r o d u c t i v i t y r a t e i n t h e

c o u n t r y i s l a g g i n g b e h i n d t h a t o f i t s m a i n t r a d i n g p a r t n e r s . I n a f r e e l a b o u r

m a r k e t w h i c h i s r e g u la t e d o n l y b y m a r k e t f o r c e s a n d u n t r a m m e l e d b y l e g i s l a t i o n ,

C p l a y e r s w i l l u s u a l l y e n d u p d i s m i s s e d .

8

In South Africa this would mean that 1.1million economically active people will

lose their jobs and with a labour absorption rate of only 10% of school-leavers, of

which there are 500 000 per year, society ends up with an additional burden of

1.55 million unemployed people per annum. This would swell the unemployment

level to a whopping 45 or 55% level depending on the definition one accords the

term "unemployment".

The South African legislature has, however, seen fit to interfere in the labour

market by introducing laws that protect employees against unfair dismissal, unfair

retrenchments and unfair discrimination. Managers cannot however, afford to

shirk their responsibility of differentiating their workforce into A, B and C players

and they accordingly require a deeper understanding of the law relating to unfair

dismissal, retrenchment and unfair discrimination. A better understanding of

these topics will equip the manager in future to face up to his or her responsibility

of differentiating employees. Without this differentiation, companies cannot even

attempt to become more competitive and therefore assume a meaningful role in

the global economy.

The job of creating employee differentiation in the workplace becomes gradually

more difficult over time and managers sometimes make themselves guilty of

"gaming the rules". Practices to watch out for are that managers will sometimes

sneak people, who are planning to retire, into the bottom 10% category. It is also

not uncommon to find the names of ex-employees and deceased employees in

these lists!

9

It is clear that it is only the A and B Players in a company that deliver positive

ROI. C Players invariably come up with a negative ROI. A strong case has been

advocated for removing the bottom 10% at the company's year-end. if free labour

market forces had any say in the matter. It might seem cruel at first but retaining

the 10% amounts to a false kindness. At the end of the day it kills productivity

and is one of the main catalysts of unemployment. Retaining only A and B

players in a company leads to higher productivity, positive ROI's for companies,

creates a more harmonious workforce and a sound relationship with

management. This will create scope for a better labour absorption rate in the

economy which will in no small measure contribute towards a lower

unemployment rate.

10

AIDS AND HIV TESTING

Section 7 of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (the EEA) as well as Section

36 of our Constitution form the pillars on which basis HIV and Aids testing are

rendered permissible.

If the grounds for testing are not within the four corners of these Acts, it will be

held that the testing amounts to unfair discrimination.

Section 7(2) of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 states that : “testing of an

employee to determine that employee’s HIV status is prohibited unless such

testing is determine to be justifiable by labour courts”.

The courts use different approaches in relation to the aforesaid subsection. One

case says that HIV testing is absolutely prohibited in the absence of an order by

the Labour Court - Joy Mining, a division of Harnischfeger (SA) (Pty) Ltd v

Numsa & others (2002) 23 ILJ 391 (LC) (Joy Mining case). On the other hand,

the Labour Court held that if HIV testing is done anonymously and/or on a

voluntary basis, it falls outside the ambit of Section 7(2) of the EEA and an order

from the Labour Court is not necessary – Irvin & Johnson L v Trawler and Line

Fishing Union & others (2003) 4 (BLLR) 379; 2003 (3) SA 212 (LC) "(I & J case)".

It is therefore essential to take a closer look at these conflicting decisions.

In the Joy Mining case, which was an application for an order permitting the

testing of employees for HIV status, the Court first considered whether it would

be justifiable in granting such an order in terms of Section 7(2) of the EEA as well

as the factors which should be taken into account in formulating the court’s order.

The court found that there is a difference between a voluntary and involuntary

testing, but held that ultimately, all testing requires the Labour Court’s sanction.

11

In the Irvin & Johnson case the applicant also approached the court wishing to

arrange for voluntary and anonymous HIV testing within its trawling division. The

applicant set out in its application the reasons for requesting this test and also

the education and awareness programs which it had introduced in the workplace.

It furthermore alluded to the fact that the Elisa and Abbott tests would be used on

the employees which is a rapid test using a small blood sample obtained via a

pin prick. The test results are obtained voluntary and anonymous and record the

age and job category of the individual employees. Moreover, it was said that

these tests would be conducted by an independent professional testing agency,

on an ongoing basis accompanied by pre-test and post-test counselling. If it is

therefore apparent that the employer will only receive the percentages and

number of employees that tested positively there would be no discrimination

against the employees on the basis of his/her HIV status. No prejudicial influence

would be drawn from the refusal of the employee to submit to testing.

The purpose of Section 7 of the EEA is clearly to prohibit an employer from unfair

discrimination against an employee inter alia on the basis of the employee’s

medical condition. If the HIV testing is therefore anonymous, it falls outside the

ambit of Section 7 (2).

However in PFG Building Glass (Pty) Ltd v Ceppawu & others (2003) 5 BLLR

475 (LC) Pillay, J. held that it is not sufficient for HIV testing to be anonymous to

fall outside the ambit of Section 7 (2) of the EEA. It must also be done with the

employee’s consent in other words, on a voluntary basis. In the case of

voluntary testing, it is entirely up to the employee to decide if he or she is to be

tested or not, and no adverse consequences can follow from the employee’s

decision.

12

Pillay, J. considered Section 7 (2) of the EEA in the light of the Constitution and

noted that the rights affected by Section 7 (2) are, inter alia, the right to freedom

and security of a person, the right to dignity and the right of privacy. Should an

employee therefore give his informed consent to HIV testing, Section 7 (2) of the

EEA will not constitute a limitation of the right to freedom and security of the

person and it is therefore not required to obtain a labour court approval for the

HIV testing.

Should the employee however refuse to consent or the consent is obtained from

the employee without the employee being fully informed, such testing will be

prohibited in the absence of a Labour Court order.

FORMULATION OF RULES ON HIV TESTING

We recommend as:

Rule 1

Rule 2

Rule 3

Rule 4

Ensure that the testing serves a meaningful business purpose;

Employees should be tested across the board - therefore not

targeted towards certain individuals;

Filling in and signing of voluntary and anonymous test

consents are highly recommended;

Retain the confidentiality of the results by letting the testing

lab. retain them - conclude a confidentiality agreement with

the pathologists.

13

HIVTESTING

SE

C 3

6 O

F T

HE

CO

NS

TIT

UT

ION S

EC

7(2) OF

TH

E E

EA

HIV TESTING

UNLESS LABOUR COURTORDER

JOY MINING CASE

NO

TE

ST

ING

HIV TESTING

NO NEED FOR LABOURCOURT

I & J CASE

TE

ST

MU

ST

BE

AN

ON

YM

OU

S

HIVTESTING

NO NEED FORLABOUR COURT

PFG BUILDING GLASS CASE

TE

ST

MU

ST

BE

AN

ON

YM

OU

S TE

ST

MU

ST

BE

VO

LU

NT

AR

Y

and

REQUIREMENTS

14

UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION

At the heart of the prohibition against unfair discrimination lies a recognition that

the purpose of our new Constitution and democratic order is the establishment of

a society in which all human beings will be accorded equal dignity and respect,

regardless of their membership of particular groups (President of the Republic of

South Africa & another v Hugo 1997 (4) SA 1 (CC))

Section 16(1) of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 states that :

“No person may unfairly discriminate, directly or indirectly, against an

employee, in any employment policy or practice, on one or more grounds,

including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, family

responsibility, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age,

disability, religion, HIV status, conscience, belief, political opinion, culture,

language and birth”.

The questions after reading the court’s view of unfair discrimination in the Hugo’s

case and Section 6 (1) of the EEA are the following:

1. Are the grounds of unfair discrimination limited or is it infinitely wide?

2. Who precisely is a employee which sub section 1 is talks about?

After the recent events of the Judge Desai matter in India, there were various

viewpoints as to whether Judge Desai must resign or not.

It is quite evident that, after al the dust has settled down, his employer, being the

Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, will still continue with his

employment.

15

Now suppose that his employer decided to end his employment even though the

complainant withdrew the case against the Judge. Is it possible that it might be

held that their ending of his employment boils down to unfair discrimination?

If you read the Hugo’s case carefully, one sees that the Court’s view is that all

human beings will be accorded equal dignity and respect, regardless of their

membership of a particular group. The question that arises is, should a Judge be

accorded a higher level of dignity than that of an ordinary human being? Can it

be contemplated that because a Judge belongs to the group of the Judiciary, he

must be judged on a higher level? This is surely not contemplated by the Hugo’s

case. The court’s view is that all human beings should be accorded EQUAL

dignity and respect.

It could therefore be said that a hypothetical dismissal of Judge Desai would

have amounted to unfair discrimination.

Unfair discrimination also surfaced in another matter involving a Judge.

16

In Satchwell v The President of the Republic of South Africa, the Constitutional

Court held that Section 8 and 9 of the Judge’s Remuneration and Conditions of

the Employment Act 88 of 1989 were invalid. This section did not provide for

pensions and gratuities for persons in a permanent same sexlife partnership.

Although the other respondent did not deny that the discrimination was unfair and

did not suggest that the provisions were justifiable in terms of Section 36 of the

Constitution, it is arguable whether this defence would have availed the

respondent in any way.

It is therefore apparent from the two aforesaid scenarios that the grounds for

unfair dismissal is unlimited and if a person falls into the ambit of the definition of

employee in terms of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1988, unfair

discrimination in relation to the person’s workplace is also relevant to that person.

In order for an employee to establish a claim based on unfair discrimination in

terms of the Constitution, the LRA and the EEA, the employee is to establish the

following elements:

1. He or she is engaged in an employer/employee relationship;

2. Does the differentiation amount to discrimination?

3. If discrimination is established, one must determine whether it is

discrimination based on a specified ground or if it is not based on a

specified ground;

4. On a specified ground, then discrimination will have been established;

5. If on an unspecified ground, employee has the burden to prove that

objectively, the ground is based on attributes and characteristics which

have the potention to impair the fundamental human dignity of persons as

human beings or to affect them adversely in a comparably serious manner.

17

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Although discrimination based on race is one of the specific prohibited grounds

contained in the Constitution and the Employment Equity Act, Section 6 (2) of the

Employment Equity Act states that it is not unfair discrimination to take

affirmative action measures consistent with the purpose of the Employment

Equity Act or to distinguish, exclude or prefer any person on the basis of an

inherent requirement of a job.

The following example of the effect of affirmative action measures in practice

recently appeared in a local newspaper:

ABC has a vacancy for a computer software programmer and receives two

applications - from Mr. Jones, a white male, and Mr. Malebo, a black male.

Both Jones and Malebo qualified and obtained the appropriate information

technology (IT) degree, although Jones has four years' working experience

while Malebo has no work experience in the IT field.

In assessing the applicants, the company decided to appoint Jones in the light of

his experience. Malebo feels hard done by and accuses the company of applying

discriminatory employment practices. Is he justifiably aggrieved?

If an employer use certain selection criteria to establish whether a person is

qualified for a position, it is of vital importance that affirmative action and the EEA

are correctly applied in the workplace. In this example it is clear that the EEA

prohibits discrimination solely on the grounds of lack of experience.

It is recommended that employers seek advice in relation to implementing

appropriate and effective policies to avoid potential liability.

18

A white applicant, in Auf Der Heide Auf Der Heide v University of Cape Town

2000 (21) ILJ 1758 (LC) was unsuccessful in application for a permanent

university position since discrimination against the applicant could not be proven.

This was the case even though the candidate may or may not have been

appointed on a basis of affirmative action. In this matter the Labour Court

remarked that the potential beneficiary of an affirmative action program does not

have to prove actual disadvantage, but that it is sufficient if he/she is a member

of a group that have been disadvantaged by general society discrimination

whether direct or indirect. However a non-South-African black does not fall

within such category.

Although the courts will not readily interfere with appointments of affirmative

action candidates, the following are a few instances where the Court did in fact

do so:

1. If the employer has ignored its own policies in respect of the appointment

of affirmative action candidates. The arbitrator ruled in Meyer v the SA

Police Service 2002 ILJ 974 (BCA) that the refusal on the part of the

SAPS to promote the applicant to the rank of Captain was in breach of its

own employment equity plan and constitutes an unfair labour practice.

2. If the employer has appointed an unsuitable candidate. The employer

usually enjoys managerial prerogative and it is normally not the task of the

court or the arbitrator to determine whether the appointee is able to do the

job. The function of the court in arbitrator is to determine rather whether

the process, which was followed, was in order.

3. In circumstances where a person who did not apply for the position was

appointed.

4. In circumstances where the selection process which was followed, was

irregular. The court found that the appointment of a woman, related to the

mayor, who participated in the selection process was irregular, - De Kock

v Municipality of Villiersdorp 2001 BLLR 1111 (LC).

19

CCMA

The CCMA was established by virtue of Section 112 of the 1995 Labour

Relations Act which commenced on 1 January 1996. The CCMA’s vision is to

promote social justice and economic growth, with the social partners, by

transforming relations in the labour market. The CCMA seeks to achieve this by

delivering high quality, low-cost dispute resolution and prevention services.

Their mission statement is the following:

“For ourselves, we held the professional, integrity and service and the

value of sharing trust with the relationships for the CCMA, we hold

ourselves accountable for sustaining our vibrant, diverse community,

united by a thirst for learning and strengthened by self-discipline. For the

public, we hold fast our commitment for transforming labour relations by

resolving disputes fairly and sharing our knowledge widely for Africa, we

hold high the ideals of the equality, social justice and shared prosperity.

The function of the CCMA is the following:

The CCMA will -

• conciliate disputes

• arbitrate certain disputes that remain unresolved after conciliation;

• facilitate the establishment of workplace forums and statutory councils;

• compile and publish information and statistics about its activities; and

• consider applications for accreditation and subsidy by bargaining councils

and private agencies.

The CCMA may –

20

• Supervise ballots for unions and employer organisations;

• Give training and advise on the establishment of collective bargaining

structures; workplace structuring; consultation processes; termination of

employment, employment equity programmes; and dispute prevention.

CASE LOAD

The CCMA presently handles and administers case loads never considered

possible. The CCMA logs and processes some 417 new cases each day. This

means that they receive a new case every minute of every working day. During

the period 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 a total of 118 051 disputes were

referred to the CCMA. The number of referrals received during this period,

represented a 7% increase over the number of referrals received during the

previous financial year. The screening and allocating teams, better known as

SAT, located at the front desk of each CCMA provincial office, screened out 34%

of the 118 051 referrals and deemed them to be outside the jurisdiction of the

CCMA. Another 12% of these “Jurisdictional” cases were dealt with at the point

of entry by pre-conciliation. The purpose of improving the front office desk

services as the CCMA is to implement a quick, cost-effective resolution of

uncomplicated disputes.

Unfair dismissal disputes account for the largest percentage of issues in dispute.

These disputes account for 82% of the CCMA's case load.

21

DISPUTE REFERRALS BY ISSUE

100% 82%

8%

1% 3% 3% 3%

Other Collective Severance Mutual Unfair Unfair Bargaining Pay Interest Labour Dismissal

Practice

71% of disputes referred to the CCMA are settled by conciliation. A decrease

was noted in this type of dispute resolution which may be attributed to the Con-

Arb process introduced by the amendment to the Labour Relations Act

promulgated in August 2002. Con-Arb’s purpose is an attempt to expedite the

dispute resolution process due to the fact that the conciliation and arbitration take

place as a continuous process on the same day.

Ref

erra

ls

22

ARBITRATION

Of the arbitrations conducted in 2002/2003 financial year, 52% resulted in an

award being made, 21% was settled by referral back to conciliation, 9% were

dismissed due to the non-attendance by either the complainant or both parties,

and 9% were withdrawn or settled by the parties prior to the arbitration taking

place. Of the total arbitration awards, 60% were in favour of the employee and

40% were in favour of the employer.

FUTURE PLANS

According to the CCMA’S Annual Report for the 2002/2003 financial year, it is

indicated that its priority focus will shift to the unrepresented

applicant/unorganised workers. Applicants without representation constitutes

75% of all referrals to the CCMA and the CCMA’s dispute prevention department

is aiming to reach this constituency by way of community radio, offering training

and information services to advise officers and through the use of best practice

video aimed at workers.

23

CCMA RULES

The CCMA rules were amended in 2003, but there is no need to go through each

and every part of the rules, though some amendments need to be considered to

appreciate the true intention of the author of the rules.

The first rule that needs attention is Rule 10.

Rule 10 reads as follows:

“1. The party must refer a dispute to the commission for conciliation by

delivering a completed LRA 7.11 form.

2. The referring party must:

a. sign the referral document in accordance with Rule 4;

b. attach to the referral document written proof in accordance

with Rule 6, that the referral was served on the other parties

to the dispute;

c. If the referral document is filed out of time, attach an

application for condonation in accordance with Rule 9.

3. The commission must refuse to accept the referral document until

sub-rule 2 has been completed."

It is therefore clear that non-compliance with the sub-rule 2 of Rule 10 will result

in a refusal from the commission to accept form 7.11.

24

The three requirements for the acceptance of LRA form 7.11 is therefore the

following:

1. Form 7.11 must be signed by the party or by a person entitlement in terms

of the Act or the rules to represent the party in proceedings;

2. If the referral document is served on the other party by way of fax or

registered post, confirmation of same must be annexed to the referral

document. If the referral document is served on the other side by way of

personal service, a statement must be attached to the referral document

confirming this service.

3. A dispute for unfair dismissal, must be referred to the commission within 30

(thirty) days of the date of the dismissal. If the matter is not referred within

30 days, the applicant must apply to the commission to condone his late

filing of the referral document. This application together with the applicant’s

affidavit as well as confirmation of service of the application and affidavit on

the other side, must be attached to the referral document.

25

The other rule that needs some attention is Rule 34 with the heading “How to

request a pre-dismissal arbitration in terms of Section 188A. According to

Section 188A of the Labour Relations Act of 1995 an employer may request the

commission to conduct a pre-dismissal arbitration in circumstances where the

employee agreed to this process. Usually the employment contract makes

specific provision for this process and the signing of the contract by the

employee, provides for the employee’s consent.

A copy of this signed contract together with LRA form 7.19 will initiate the

procedure by the commission. The commission will furthermore require payment

of a prescribed fee before commencement of this procedure. After 21 days of

receiving the request and the prescribed fee, the commission must notify the

parties to the pre- dismissal arbitration of when and where the pre-dismissal

arbitration will be held. The commission will furthermore give the parties at least

14 days notice of the commencement of the pre-dismissal arbitration. If the

matter is resolved before the commission’s notice, the prescribed fee will be

refunded to the employer.

26

PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS

HEARING HELD AFTER DECISION TO DISMISS - RULES FOR CURINGNATURAL JUSTICE TRANSGRESSION

MAMABOLO v. RUSTENBERG REGIONAL LOCAL COUNCIL 2001 (1) SA135 (SCA)

The Appellant had been appointed by the Respondent Council as an RDP

director on 16 May 1995. His appointment was governed by Clause 6.2.7 of

regulations promulgated in terms of Section 48(1)(a) of the Labour Relations Act

28 of 1956.

Clause 6.2.7 provided for the appointment by the Respondent of permanent

employees on probation for a fixed period not exceeding 6 months and provided

further that if an employee had successfully completed the probationary period,

the Respondent should confirm that employees appointment in writing.

If the Respondent was, however, of the opinion that an employee was not fit for

the post concerned, on or before the date of completion of the probationary

period, it could either:

(a) in writing and stating the reasons therefor, extend the probationary period

once only for a fixed period not exceeding 6 months; or

(b) give the employee at least one working month's written notice of its intention

to terminate his or her employment.

On 28 November 1995 the Respondent extended the contract for a further 6

months. On 14 May 1996 the Respondent gave him one month from 16 May of

intention to dismiss him.

Appellant challenged the validity of the extension of the probationary period and

the resolution to terminate his services.

27

Appellant argued that because he had successfully completed his probationary

period by 28 Nov 1995, the Respondent had no longer been entitled to extend

his probation period and that, upon completion of the probationary period by 28

Nov 1995, he had become a permanent employee notwithstanding the absence

of confirmation in writing.

Appellant further argued that the decision to terminate had been procedurally

unfair because, when he had been invited to make representation to the

Respondent's Council meeting on 28 May 1996, the decision to dismiss had

already been taken.

The Court held as to the validity of the extension of the probationary period that

the whole basis of the Appellant's employment had been that he was required to

serve a probationary period of 6 (six) months. If the Respondent wished to

appoint him, his permanent employment had to be confirmed in writing. A failure

to confirm such appointment or the mere expiry of period would not mean that he

is a permanent employee.

28

Court held further that although it was true that a right to be heard after the event,

when the decision had already been taken, was seldom an adequate substitute for

right to be heard before the decision was taken, in certain instances a Court could

accept as sufficient compliance with the rules of natural justice a hearing held after a

decision had been taken where:

1 there had been a sufficient interval between taking of the decision and its

implementation to allow for a fair hearing.

2 the decision maker retained a sufficiently open mind to allow him- or herself to

be persuaded that the decision should be changed; or

3 the affected individual had not thereby suffered prejudice.

Court held further that the decision taken on 14th May had in substance been

provisional and not final. The Respondent's assurance to the Appellant that it would

keep an open mind appeared to have been demonstrated by its invitation to the

Appellant to address it on 28th May.

The termination of the Appellant's employment had been valid.