Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
At the time of his dismissal he was also the chairperson of the Airlines Pilots Association (a trade union). He contended that his dismissal was in fact automatically unfair in terms of section 187(1)(d) of the Labour Relations Act , because he had been dismissed for union activities and for initiating litigation against the company on behalf ...
Alternatively, even if sex workers do have section 23 rights, the Labour Relations Act – in denying protection against unfair dismissal to sex workers – imposes a justifiable limitation on those rights, because the limitation "gives effect" to the rule-of-law principle that courts should not sanction illegal activity.
Hoffmann nonetheless sued in the High Court of South Africa, alleging that SAA's refusal to employ him constituted unfair discrimination in violation of his constitutional rights. The Witwatersrand Local Division denied his application, finding that SAA's practice was "based on considerations of medical, safety and operational grounds" and ...
The table below lists the judgments of the Constitutional Court of South Africa delivered in 2020.. The members of the court at the start of 2020 were Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, and judges Johan Froneman, Chris Jafta, Sisi Khampepe, Mbuyiseli Madlanga, Steven Majiedt, Nonkosi Mhlantla, Leona Theron and Zukisa Tshiqi.
Minister of Finance and Another v Van Heerden is a landmark decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa on the constitutionality of affirmative action.Delivered in July 2004, it marked the court's first application of the affirmative action clause in section 9(2) of the Bill of Rights.
Smit v Abrahams [1] is an important case in South African law.It was heard in the Appellate Division on March 15, 1994, with judgment handed down on May 16. Botha AR, EM Grosskopf AR, Kumleben AR, Van Den Heever AR and Mahomed Wn AR were the judges.
In Fry's Metals v National Union of Metalworkers, the court discussed the difference between an operational-requirement dismissal and an automatically unfair dismissal: In the case of a dismissal due to operational requirements, the purpose is to get rid of employees who do not meet the business requirements of the employer, so that new ...
Weinberg v Olivier [1] is an important case in South African contract law, especially in the area of exemption clauses. It was heard in the Appellate Division on 20 October 1942, with judgment handed down on 26 November. De Wet CJ, Watermeyer JA, Tindall JA, Centlivres JA and Feetham JA were the judges.