Labour Law 1

Question 1
Protected Rights:
Several protected rights have been infringed in the scenario described. Firstly,
the employer's refusal to allow employees a lunch break during working hours
is a violation of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) in South
Africa, which requires employers to provide a meal interval of at least 30
minutes for employees working for more than five hours per day (Department
of Labour, 2021).
Secondly, the employer's policy of not employing coloured people and

Catholic employees for promotion opportunities is a violation of the
Employment Equity Act (EEA) in South Africa, which prohibits unfair
discrimination on various grounds, including race and religion (Department of
Labour, 2021).
Thirdly, the employer's lockout of all workers from the workplace until they
revoke their union membership is a violation of the right to freedom of
association, which is protected under the South African Constitution (Republic
of South Africa, 1996).
Finally, the dismissal of employees who engaged in a go-slow could also be

seen as an infringement of the right to strike, which is also protected under
the South African Constitution (Republic of South Africa, 1996).
Substantive and Procedural Fairness for Dismissals
In terms of substantive fairness, there must be a valid reason for the

dismissal, and the employer must follow a fair procedure in implementing the
dismissal. In this scenario, the employees were dismissed for engaging in a
go-slow, which may be seen as a valid reason for dismissal, depending on the
circumstances. However, the employer must still follow a fair procedure in
implementing the dismissal.
In terms of procedural fairness, the employer must follow a fair procedure in
implementing the dismissal, which includes providing the employee with
notice of the dismissal, an opportunity to respond to the allegations against
them, and an opportunity to be represented by a trade union representative or
fellow employee. If the dismissal is procedurally unfair, it may be found to be
unfair even if the reason for dismissal was valid (Department of Labour,
2021).
Conclusion
Therefore, Jabu should ensure that the employer follows both substantive and
procedural fairness when dismissing employees for engaging in a go-slow.
Jabu and his colleagues could seek legal assistance from the Textile Workers
Union or the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA)
to ensure that their rights are protected.
Question 2
Introduction
As per the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) in South Africa,

employers are required to provide certain minimum conditions of employment
to their employees. In the scenario described, the employer's refusal to allow
employees a lunch break during working hours is a violation of the BCEA,
which requires employers to provide a meal interval of at least 30 minutes for
employees working for more than five hours per day (Department of Labour,
2021).
Furthermore, the BCEA also provides for other minimum conditions of

employment, such as working hours, overtime pay, annual leave, sick leave,
and family responsibility leave. The employer's lockout of all workers from the
workplace until they revoke their union membership may also be seen as a
violation of the BCEA, as it could be interpreted as the employer depriving the
employees of their right to work (Department of Labour, 2021).
Jabu and his colleagues could file a complaint with the Department of Labour
or seek legal assistance from the Textile Workers Union to ensure that their
rights are protected and that the employer is complying with the minimum
conditions of employment set out in the BCEA.
Question 3
Introduction
Advice to Jabu on Consequences of Protected and Unprotected Strikes:
Protected Strikes: Protected strikes are strikes that take place in compliance
with the legal requirements and procedures set out in the Labour Relations
Act of South Africa (LRA). In this case, the employees have the right to strike
in response to the employer's unfair labor practices, including refusing to allow
them a lunch break during working hours and discriminating against colored
people and Catholic employees. The employees have the right to join and
form a trade union of their choice, and the employer is prohibited from
discriminating against them based on their union membership. The employer
also has a legal obligation to engage in good-faith negotiations with the union
to resolve the dispute.
If the employees follow the legal procedures in notifying the employer and the
relevant bargaining council about their intention to strike and providing
sufficient notice, their strike will be protected, and they will be protected
against dismissal, victimization, or any other form of unfair labor practice.
Unprotected Strikes: Unprotected strikes, on the other hand, are strikes that
are not in compliance with the legal requirements and procedures set out in
the LRA. In this case, the employees' decision to engage in a go-slow is an
unprotected strike, as they did not follow the legal procedures for a protected
strike. They did not provide sufficient notice to the employer or the relevant
bargaining council, nor did they engage in good-faith negotiations before
embarking on the strike. As a result, they are not protected against dismissal
or any other form of unfair labor practice.
Consequences of Unprotected Strikes: Since the employees' go-slow was an

unprotected strike, the employer has the right to dismiss them without
following any legal procedures. However, the dismissal must still be fair and
comply with the general principles of labor law. The employees may also be
liable for any losses suffered by the employer as a result of the go-slow, and
they may be subject to disciplinary action.
Conclusion
Therefore, it is advisable for the employees to follow the legal procedures for
a protected strike to ensure that they are protected against any unfair labor
practice.
Question 4
information on the relevant laws regarding discrimination in the workplace.
Regarding the employer's policy of not hiring coloured people and overlooking
Catholic employees for promotions, this is a form of discrimination and is
illegal in South Africa. The Employment Equity Act of 1998 prohibits
discrimination in the workplace based on race, gender, religion, and other
grounds. Specifically, Section 6 of the Act prohibits unfair discrimination in the
workplace.
Additionally, the Labour Relations Act of 1995 protects the right of employees
to join and participate in trade unions. Section 5 of the Act prohibits employers
from discriminating against employees for their trade union activities.
Therefore, Siyasebenza Textiles' policy is not legal under South African law,
and the employees have the right to challenge it.
Question 5
There are no defenses available to allegations of unfair discrimination at

Siyasebenza Textiles. The company's policy of not employing coloured people
and overlooking Catholic employees for promotions is a clear violation of
South African labor laws and the Constitution, which prohibit discrimination on
the grounds of race, religion, or any other grounds.
The employer's refusal to allow lunch breaks during working hours is also a
violation of labor laws, which require employers to provide employees with
reasonable breaks and rest periods during the workday. The employer cannot
use the excuse that trade unions cannot interfere with how he runs his
business as a defense for these violations.
The lockout of workers for joining a trade union is also illegal under South
African labor laws, which protect workers' rights to join and participate in trade
unions. Additionally, the employer's decision to dismiss all employees
involved in the go-slow is unlawful, as workers have the right to engage in
protected industrial action, such as a go-slow, as long as it is conducted within
the limits of the law.
Therefore, the employer has no valid defenses available to allegations of

unfair discrimination, violation of labor laws, and violation of workers' rights to
join and participate in trade unions and engage in protected industrial action.
References
Department of Labour. (2021). Basic Guide to Termination. Retrieved from
Employment Equity Act, No. 55 of 1998. Available at:

https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/a55-98.pdf
Labour Relations Act, No. 66 of 1995.
Labour Relations Act, No. 66 of 1995. Available at:

http://www.labour.gov.za/DOL/legislation/acts/labour-relations/read-online/
labour-relations-act-no-66-of-1995
Republic of South Africa. (1996). Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.

Retrieved from
https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/act108of1996s.p
df

Labour Law 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labour Law 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labour Law 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Question 1

Secondly, the employer's policy of not employing coloured people and

Finally, the dismissal of employees who engaged in a go-slow could also be

Substantive and Procedural Fairness for Dismissals

In terms of substantive fairness, there must be a valid reason for the

As per the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) in South Africa,

Furthermore, the BCEA also provides for other minimum conditions of

Advice to Jabu on Consequences of Protected and Unprotected Strikes:

Consequences of Unprotected Strikes: Since the employees' go-slow was an

information on the relevant laws regarding discrimination in the workplace.

There are no defenses available to allegations of unfair discrimination at

Therefore, the employer has no valid defenses available to allegations of

Department of Labour. (2021). Basic Guide to Termination. Retrieved from

Employment Equity Act, No. 55 of 1998. Available at:

Labour Relations Act, No. 66 of 1995.

Labour Relations Act, No. 66 of 1995. Available at:

Republic of South Africa. (1996). Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.

You might also like