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.
The fundamental difference between an operational requirement dismissal and an automatically unfair dismissal is the employer's reason for the dismissal. If an employer dismisses employees because the terms and conditions of employment must be altered for the business to continue being viable, the employees may be fairly dismissed, as they no ...
Laugh It Off Promotions CC v South African Breweries International (Finance) BV t/a Sabmark International and Another is a landmark decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa on the intersection between freedom of expression and trademark law. The case concerned the proper interpretation of anti-trademark dilution provisions of the ...
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 ...
Fourway Haulage SA (Pty) Ltd v SA National Roads Agency Ltd [1] is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on 5 November 2008, with judgment handed down on 26 November. The judges were Scott JA, Farlam JA, Brand JA, Lewis JA and Jafta JA.
Gatenby v Gatenby and Others [1] is an important case in South African law, heard in the Eastern Cape Division by Jones J on March 28 and April 9, 1996, with judgment handed down on April 23. IJ Smuts appeared for the applicant, and MJ Lowe for the respondents.
Minister of Finance v Van Heerden Court Constitutional Court of South Africa Full case name Minister of Finance and Another v Frederik Van Heerden Decided 29 July 2004 (2004-07-29) Docket nos. CCT 63/03 Citations ZACC 3 ; 2004 (6) SA 121 (CC); 2004 (11) BCLR 1125 (CC); 12 BLLR 1181 (CC) Case history Appealed from Van Heerden v Speaker of Parliament and Others (7067/01, 12 June 2003, unreported ...