z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Automatically unfair and operational requirement dismissals: Making sense of the 2014 amendments
Author(s) -
Kamalesh Newaj,
Bernard Eck
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
per
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.204
H-Index - 6
ISSN - 1727-3781
DOI - 10.17159/1727-3781/2016/v19i0a1203
Subject(s) - dismissal , unfair dismissal , criticism , law , contradiction , law and economics , labour law , political science , economics , sociology , philosophy , epistemology
This article explores the concept of the automatic unfair dismissal that is regulated in s 187(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act, where the reason for the dismissal is to "compel the employee to accept a demand in respect of any matter of mutual interest". This provision raised important questions of law, as it brought to the fore the conflict that existed between this provision and sections 188(1)(a)(ii) and 189 of the LRA, which permits dismissals for operational requirements. This dichotomy was dealt with by the court in Fry's Metals, but the decision was controversial and faced criticism. The decision of the court was consequently rendered incorrect, resulting in the amendment to s 187(1)(c), which now reads that a dismissal is automatically unfair if the reason for the dismissal is a refusal by employees to accept a demand in respect of any matter of mutual interest between them and their employer. However, it is doubtful whether the amended provision provides a solution to the contradiction that exists. Resultantly, this article seeks to critique the amendment and to make recommendations regarding the regulation of this part of labour law.     

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here