Labour Law News

LAC JUDGMENT: Theft of Coca Cola and Hearsay Evidence A Coca Cola truck lost its load on the highway. Passers-by stopped and helped themselves to bottles of Coca Cola. A truck driver and his assistant were charged with participating in the looting after news reports and social media posts identified them. The employees claimed that they had stopped to help the driver of the broken down truck, and that the driver thanked them by giving them a few bottles of drinks. The CCMA Commissioner found that the employer had relied on hearsay evidence without laying a basis for the admission of such evidence. The Labour Court agreed. The employer then appealed to the LAC. The employer conceded that the newspaper and Facebook evidence that it presented was hearsay, but it argued that the Commissioner should have applied section 3(3) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act and found it to be in the interests of justice to admit such evidence. The LAC rejected this argument. It found that in the absence of a foundation having been laid for the admission of hearsay evidence, the hearsay evidence was properly rejected. The Commissioner had no obligation to consider the admission of hearsay evidence without an application for such admission.

Following interviews and deliberations the Commission has resolved to recommend Deputy Judge President M E Molahlehi for the position of Judge President of the Labour and Labour Appeal Court. The Commission has resolved not to recommend any candidates for the Eastern Cape Division of the High Court, Mthatha vacancy. #JSCinterviews #JudiciaryRSA #Judiciary

LAC JUDGMENT: Territorial Jurisdiction of the Labour Court. Mr Sorrell concluded an independent contractor agreement with Petroplan. Petroplan is registered in South Africa. He was required to render services at a gas exploration project in Mozambique. After the termination of his services, Mr Sorrell pursued an automatically unfair dismissal claim against Petroplan. The Labour Court found that it lacked territorial jurisdiction over the matter, as the workplace where he was to render services was in Mozambique. Mr Sorrell pursued an appeal to the LAC. The LAC referred to section 151(2) of the LRA which provides that the Labour Court had jurisdiction in all provinces of South Africa. It found that the location of the employee's physical workplace, and not the location where the contract was concluded, determines jurisdiction. It therefore found that the Labour Court had correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction.

BREAKING NEWS: The Chairperson of the National Minimum Wage Commission has issued an invitation to all interested parties to make representations on adjustments to the national minimum wage for 2025. The closing date for representations is 30 September 2024.

The 27th SASLAW Annual National Conference panel discussions will showcase industry leaders presenting thought-provoking and unique perspectives from a variety of diverse backgrounds within the profession of labour law. Join the expert discussions and register today! https://lnkd.in/dbdBR8T6   Candice Slump, The Competition Commission South Africa & Ludwig Frahm-Arp, Fasken (Incorporated in South Africa as Bell Dewar Inc) – 12 Sep 2024 – 09:10 The intersection between Competition Law and Labour Law & Constitutional Court Judgement on Coca-Cola beverages Africa PTY LTD vs Competition Commission/ Food Allied commission   Saiuri Seetal, Michelle Posemann & Hlengiwe Skosana, GARLICKE & BOUSFIELD INC – 12 Sep 2024 – 14:05 Multi-tiered dispute resolution as the only impactful way to pursue the ideal of justice from a labour law context.

LABOUR COURT JUDGMENT: Dismissed for recruiting for union. The workforce of the employer, Gold Plat Recovery, was historically not unionised. AMCU started gaining membership among the workforce. The employer dismissed a group of employees for allegedly intimidating employees to join AMCU. They alleged that the dismissal was automatically unfair, as the reason for their dismissal was that they exercised a right conferred by the LRA. The court found that the employer was hostile to AMCU, and discouraged employees from joining AMCU. The court accepted the employees' evidence that they were recruiting for AMCU, that management warned them not to associate with AMCU, and that they were dismissed for joining AMCU and actively recruiting for it. The court also rejected the claim that they had intimidated other employees to join AMCU. The court concluded that the employees' dismissal was automatically unfair, and ordered the employer to reinstate the employees with back-pay.

BREAKING NEWS: The Acting Judge President of the Labour Court has issued a directive regarding the implementation of the Court Online system in urgent applications, with effect from 12 August 2024.

The Department of Employment and Labour will be holding its Employment Equity Roadshow during August and September 2024. Check the schedule for roadshow details in your province.

LABOUR COURT JUDGMENT: Safety Manager dismissed after multiple employees were injured. 6 employees suffered injuries at the workplace over an 8-month period. 3 of the incidents resulted in serious trauma to the victims. The subsequent investigation and review of the health and safety systems revealed gaps, including a lack of risk assessments, procedures and controls. The Safety Manager defended her conduct, claiming that she had identified the risks and taken precautionary steps, even if they were insufficient. She also maintained that she could not be expected to perform to the same standard as an external consultant who had conducted a review of all the safety measures. The CCMA Commissioner found that the injuries to the 6 employees were not the result of the employee's conduct, and that it had not been established that she had neglected her duties. The employer was ordered to reinstate her. The employer took the matter on review, and the Labour Court found that the Commissioner had neglected to deal with the complaint relating to the employee's lack of risk assessments of the relevant areas, and that she had indeed committed misconduct. The Labour Court found, however, that there was no evidence that the shortcomings were ever the subject matter of a single discussion between the employee and management before the disciplinary proceedings, and at the very least, there should have been some engagement between her and management about her failures and to put her on clear terms how she could rectify matters. In other words, corrective action / progressive discipline should have been applied. The court found, however, that she should be awarded compensation instead of reinstatement, as her reinstatement might reverse the gains made in workplace safety, and it would be intolerable to expect the employer to restore the employment relationship when this would entail taking a palpable risk in managing the overall safety regime at the workplace.

SASLAW Membership 2024   Are you a SASLAW Member? Apply now and access member benefits! Expand your professional network to a community of over 18 000 labour law professionals across our platforms. Members enjoy privileged access to resources, archives and member only events and webinars. There has never been a better time to update your membership with SASLAW. Membership will be valid for 12 months from date of application - Read more on member benefits here.   Annual Standard Membership Fees - R1200.00 ex VAT / 12 months  Sign up here - https://lnkd.in/dUWrJMAD