SHOULD REFUSAL TO WORK FOLLOWING BREACH OF CONTRACT BY THE EMPLOYER REALLY BE A STRIKE? National Union of Mineworkers on behalf of Employees v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (2011) 32 ILJ 2104 (LAC)

Authors

  • Thanduxolo Qotoyi

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17159/obiter.v33i2.12170

Keywords:

employment relationship, inherent inequality, unfairness, dismissal, common law, LRA

Abstract

The employment relationship is by its very nature premised on the foundation of inherent inequality between the employer and the employee. The employer by virtue of the resources at its disposal is in a stronger position than the employee. One of the strong criticisms levelled against the common law has always been its indifference to this unequal division of power. The common law tends to deal with a contract of employment on the basis that it is an agreement entered into voluntarily and on equal footing by
the employer and the employee. Unsurprisingly, the common law regards terms that regulate the employment relationship as being freely entered into by the contracting parties. This assumption overlooks the inherent inequality that characterizes the employment relationship. It is on account of this assumption that the common law can be mostly associated with unfairness when it comes to the employment relationship. Nowhere is this assumption clearer than in cases of dismissal. In relation to dismissal all that the common law demands is that the dismissal must be lawful. This requirement is easily met if the employer merely provides the employee with a notice of the dismissal. Under the common law there is no mention of fairness as a requirement for a dismissal. In order to address the deficiencies of the common law, the legislature has enacted labour legislation like the Labour Relations Act (66 of 1995, hereinafter “the LRA”) which seeks to bring in some equilibrium in the employment relationship. It must also be said that the LRA provides parties
involved in the employment relationship with a framework within which employment issues must be addressed. This has resulted in a situation where in some instances there is a collision between the common law and the LRA. The critical question that emerges is whether the rights and remedies of the employees in the event of a breach of contract must be exclusively determined within the framework of the LRA. If the answer is in the affirmative then it means that the common law has lost some of its relevance in employment issues. This case note seeks to analyse the tension between the common law and the LRA in the context of employees withholding their labour on account of a breach of contract by the employer. It also seeks to analyse the implications of the approach adopted by the Labour Appeal Court in National Union of Mine Workers on behalf of Employees v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration ((2011) 32 ILJ 2104 (LAC)).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

01-09-2021

How to Cite

Thanduxolo Qotoyi. (2021). SHOULD REFUSAL TO WORK FOLLOWING BREACH OF CONTRACT BY THE EMPLOYER REALLY BE A STRIKE? National Union of Mineworkers on behalf of Employees v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (2011) 32 ILJ 2104 (LAC). Obiter, 33(2). https://doi.org/10.17159/obiter.v33i2.12170

Issue

Section

Cases