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 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.
Cox J held that Mrs Qua had not done anything wrong, and ERA 1996 section 57A did not require the employee give daily updates about absence. He noted that even if the right to automatically unfair dismissal was lost because one did not comply with section 57A(2), then an employee who had been working over a year could still have an unfair dismissal claim.
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 ...
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.
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.
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.