Abstract
The employment relationship is by its very nature premised on the foundation of inherent inequality between the employer and the employee. The employer by virtue of the resources at its disposal is in a stronger position than the employee. One of the strong criticisms levelled against the common law has always been its indifference to this unequal division of power. The common law tends to deal with a contract of employment on the basis that it is an agreement entered into voluntarily and on equal footing bythe employer and the employee. Unsurprisingly, the common law regards terms that regulate the employment relationship as being freely entered into by the contracting parties. This assumption overlooks the inherent inequality that characterizes the employment relationship. It is on account of this assumption that the common law can be mostly associated with unfairness when it comes to the employment relationship. Nowhere is this assumption clearer than in cases of dismissal. In relation to dismissal all that the common law demands is that the dismissal must be lawful. This requirement is easily met if the employer merely provides the employee with a notice of the dismissal. Under the common law there is no mention of fairness as a requirement for a dismissal. In order to address the deficiencies of the common law, the legislature has enacted labour legislation like the Labour Relations Act (66 of 1995, hereinafter “the LRA”) which seeks to bring in some equilibrium in the employment relationship. It must also be said that the LRA provides partiesinvolved in the employment relationship with a framework within which employment issues must be addressed. This has resulted in a situation where in some instances there is a collision between the common law and the LRA. The critical question that emerges is whether the rights and remedies of the employees in the event of a breach of contract must be exclusively determined within the framework of the LRA. If the answer is in the affirmative then it means that the common law has lost some of its relevance in employment issues. This case note seeks to analyse the tension between the common law and the LRA in the context of employees withholding their labour on account of a breach of contract by the employer. It also seeks to analyse the implications of the approach adopted by the Labour Appeal Court in National Union of Mine Workers on behalf of Employees v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration ((2011) 32 ILJ 2104 (LAC)).
Highlights
Refusal to work in response to a breach of contractThe employment relationship is by its very nature premised on the foundation of inherent inequality between the employer and the employee
The employer would be entitled in appropriate circumstances to dismiss the employees. This means that in terms of the Labour Relations Act, employees who rely on the exceptio non adimpleti contractus defence as a way of enforcing their contractual rights could be in a worse position if their action complies with the elements of a strike
The approach adopted by the Court in NUM v CCMA effectively deprives employees who withhold their labour in response to a breach of contract by the employer of the exceptio non adimpleti contractus common-law remedy
Summary
The employment relationship is by its very nature premised on the foundation of inherent inequality between the employer and the employee. The common law regards terms that regulate the employment relationship as being freely entered into by the contracting parties. This assumption overlooks the inherent inequality that characterizes the employment relationship. It must be said that the LRA provides parties involved in the employment relationship with a framework within which employment issues must be addressed This has resulted in a situation where in some instances there is a collision between the common law and the LRA. If the answer is in the affirmative it means that the common law has lost some of its relevance in employment issues This case note seeks to analyse the tension between the common law and the LRA in the context of employees withholding their labour on account of a breach of contract by the employer. It seeks to analyse the implications of the approach adopted by the Labour Appeal Court in National Union of Mine Workers on behalf of Employees v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration ((2011) 32 ILJ 2104 (LAC))
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
