RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN S.A. EMPLOYMENT LAW

Section 191(12) of the Labour Relations Act, Act 66 of 1995 (LRA) stipulates that: ‘An employee who is dismissed by reason of the employer's operational requirements may elect to refer the dispute either to arbitration or to the Labour Court if- (a) the employer followed a consultation procedure that applied to that employee only, irrespective of whether that procedure complied with section 189; (b) the employer‘s operational requirements lead to the dismissal of that employee only; or (c) the employer employs less than ten employees, irrespective of the number of employees who are dismissed’ In as far as the election contained in section 191(12) of the LRA is concerned the LAC in Bracks NO and Another v Rand Water & another (Rand Water) (2010) 31 ILJ 897 (LAC) at para 9, in relation to the before-amendment section 191(12) explained that: ‘S 191(12) does not expressly pronounce upon the jurisdiction of the CCMA. What the section provides is that when a single employee

The dual p urpose of civil contempt proceedings Prior, to Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector Including Organs of State v Zuma & others 2021 (5) SA 327 (CC) (Zuma) , the substratum of case law which dealt with civil contempt orders, made it clear that a court cannot be approached in civil contempt proceedings where solely a punitive order is sought. As such a court would in the normal course grant a coercive order, i.e. an order compelling compliance failing which a punitive order would be imposed. The Constitutional Court ( CC ) in Zuma , in both the majority and minority judgments gave effect to these principals. The majority judgment however provided for a specific exception to these principals, i.e. where it is a foregone conclusion that a coercive order would yield no reward. This principal should in itself precludes the court a quo from handing down a purely punit