Advertisement

Constitutional Court

This week Ivan Israelstam explains the history of a case, which went all the way through to the Constitutional Court. The case concerned employers' rights over dismissal decisions. Ivan explains the final outcome.

Over the last few decades, many companies have transferred parts of a business to another company, which continues to provide a service to the original company. Transfers of the employees takes place under Section 197 of the Labour Relations Act. If the company subsequently decides to cancel that arrangement and appoints another company to provide the service, do all of the employees move over again? Ivan explains the complexities and implications of this question.

Employers do become emotionally involved in some of the serious disciplinary cases at the workplace. So as Ivan Israelstam points out, it is very important to have a trained person to chair disciplinary hearings. It is important to understand the requirements of Schedule 8, which requires a two step process - first to prove what happened, and then to consider all circumstances before taking the decision to dismiss. That is the requirement of considering mitigating factors.  

This week Ivan Israelstam explains why labour brokers must change focus in order to remain viable businesses. The Constitutional Court has clarified that the client is now responsible for workers, who have worked for the client for more than three months. Even though they may be provided by labour brokers, those workers must be treated on equal terms with the comparable permanent workers. 

This week Ivan Israelstam expreses the opinion that the "conflicting court decisions on going concerns mean that we don’t know if we are coming or going".  Read on to see why Ivan holds this opinion. Find our what is a transfer as a going concern, and why this definition is so important to contracting companies. 

What is a "transfer as a going concern" and what are the implications for employees who are part of the transfer? This week Ivan Israelstam explains how the courts have developed the answer to these very complex questions over a period of time. 

This week Ivan Israelstam expresses his view that the employer’s right to dismiss has been weakened. He explains how the Sidumo matter proceeded through various courts ultimately ending in a Constitutional Court decision, which provides the standard for employers to adhere to when deciding upon a dismissal sanction.

Advertisement

Subscribe to Constitutional Court