Discipline and Dismissal

 

 

We dealt previously with the fairness of dismissal for misconduct, and for Incapacity – Poor Work Performance, as well as dismissal based on incapacity due to ill health.. We are now taking a look at the fairness of dismissal based on operational requirements.


Operational requirements are defined in section 213 of the LRA to be" economical, technological, structural or similar needs of the employer." Dismissals for operational requirements are classed as "no fault" dismissals - meaning that the dismissal is not due to any fault of the employee.


It is well known that employers utilise dismissals based on operational requirements is a disguise for what is in actual fact a dismissal based on misconduct or incapacity - the errant employee's job suddenly becomes redundant, or the poorly performing employee's job suddenly becomes redundant.


For this reason, a dispute  of unfair dismissal for operational requirements is examined very closely by the Courts. In SACTWU & others v Discreto ( A Division of Trump & Springbok Holdings), the Labour appeal Court ruled that 'for the employee, fairness is found in the requirement of consultation prior to a final decision on retrenchment."


This implies that the decision to retrench is the last decision to be made in the process, and not the first decision. The ruling goes on to say that "this requirement is essentially a formal or procedural one, but has a substantive purpose.  That purpose is to ensure that the ultimate decision on retrenchment is properly and genuinely justifiable by operational requirements or, put another way, by a commercial or business rationale."


This seems to imply that the there is the duty on the employer in such disputes to show that the decision to retrench was properly and genuinely justifiable by operational requirements. Employers must therefore be aware that the reasons for the retrenchment will come under scrutiny  the Courts.


The ruling states further that "the function of a court in scrutinising the consultation process is not to second-guess the commercial or business efficacy of the employer's ultimate decision, but to pass judgement on whether the ultimate decision arrived at was genuine and not merely a sham."


This makes it quite obvious that the Court will scrutinise the consultation process that was followed by the employer prior to taking the final decision to retrench. That scrutiny will also include analysing whether the ultimate decision to retrench was based on genuine operational requirements, and was not merely a dismissal for incapacity or misconduct, disguised as a retrenchment.


The ruling states further that when determining the rationality of the employer's ultimate decision, it is not the Courts function to decide whether it was the best decision under the circumstances, but only whether it was a rational commercial or operational decision,  taking into account what emerged during the consultation process. Thus, it is obvious that the consultation process is an absolute must - and is no way for the employer to avoid consultation.


Employers who employ persons on a fixed term contracts should take note that in Buthlezi v Municipal Demarcation Board, the Labour Appeal Court ruled that the premature termination of a fixed term contract on the basis of operational requirements is substantively unfair, as such termination would be in breach of the employee's common law rights.


Restructuring at a workplace can, in certain circumstances, necessitate changes  to terms and conditions of employment.  If an employee refuses to accept changes which are necessary to meet the operational requirements of the business, dismissal will be justified.


In Fry's Metals (Pty) Ltd v NUMSA & others, Judge Zondo held that while section 187 (1) (c) of the LRA prohibits dismissal if the reason is to compel the employees to accept the employer's demand in respect of a matter of mutual interest, if the reason is to "get rid of employees that do not meet the business requirements of the employer, so that new employees who will meet the business requirements can be employed", such dismissals will fall within section 189 - dismissals for operational requirements.


It must be pointed out that employers that the reference in the above ruling to "employees that do not meet the business requirements of the employer" does not  refer to employees whose work performance is not up to standard. Such instances clearly fall within the realm of incapacity, and other procedures exist for addressing such issues.


Therefore, an employee whose work performance is not up to standard due to some form of incapacity, or any incapacity based on ill health or injury, does not fall within the reference to " employees that do not meet the business requirements of the employer."


For further information, contact 

Case Law Summaries and Articles

 

Can employees be dismissed for refusing to accept new terms and conditions of employment?

Can an employer dismiss employees because they refuse to agree to a change to their terms and conditions of employment? An initial answer may be, “yes”.

Read More >>>

 

Escape route: “Resignation with immediate effect”

The latest case in the ‘disciplining employees who have resigned with immediate effect’ saga has brought about more uncertainty as to whether an employee who resigns with immediate effect shortly before a disciplinary hearing can avoid disciplinary action and subsequent dismissal.

Read More >>>

 

Freedom of expression or incitement to commit an offence? A constitutional challenge

On 4 July 2019, the North Gauteng High Court handed down judgment in the case of The EFF and other v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and other (87638/2017 and 45666/2017) in which the EFF and Julius Malema (the applicants) sought to have s18(2)(b) of the Riotous Assemblies Act, No 17 of 1956 (Riotous Act) declared unconstitutional.

Read More >>>

 

Consolidated, comprehensive or general final written warnings

Regarding dismissal, according to the Code of Good Practice, “the courts have endorsed the concept of corrective or progressive discipline. This approach regards the purpose of discipline as a means for employees to know and understand what standards are required of them.

Read More >>>

 

 

 

 

 

 

Courses and Workshops

 

                                         

 
 

Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Course

22 August 2019 (Fully Booked)

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Cape Town

12 September 2019

Southern Sun: Maharani Towers: Durban

Employment Equity Committee Training

23 August 2019 (Fully Booked)

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

29 August 2019 (Fully Booked)

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Cape Town

30 August 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Cape Town

27 September 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

04 October 2019

Southern Sun: Maharani: Durban

Shop Steward Training

28 August 2019

Emperors Palace Convention Centre

Basic Labour Relations

04 September 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

The OHS Act and the Responsibilities of Management

13 September 2019

Southern Sun: Maharani Towers: Durban

19 September 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

28 November 2019

Protea Hotel By Marriott Tyger Valley: Cape Town

Managing Day to Day Issues/ Problem Employees Full day workshop

20 September 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

27 September 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Cape Town

AARTO and the Impact on Your Business

03 October 2019

Emperors Palace Convention Centre

Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment Course

18 October 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

21 November 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Stay Easy: Cape Town

Workshop Incident/Accident Investigation Course

25 October 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

22 November 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Stay Easy: Cape Town

  

 Our Clients 

 

Android App On Google Play

Android App On Google Play