Providing clarity on the true reason for section 187(1)(c) dismissals: an examination of the various approaches by the courts
| dc.contributor.author | Marshall, Kirsten | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-10-21T11:24:44Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2025-10-21T11:24:44Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2024 | |
| dc.description.abstract | South Africa has a long history of inequality because of the apartheid regime and this significantly shaped the country’s labour laws. An example of these laws is the Labour Relations Act (LRA) 66 of 1995 which was enacted to provide many safeguards against unfair dismissals. One such safeguard is the right not to be automatically unfairly dismissed in terms of section 187(1) of the LRA. Specifically, section 187(1)(c) states that any dismissal of employees by an employer for refusing to accept a demand in a matter of mutual interest between the parties is prohibited. Despite this statutory provision, if an employer’s demand is based on a legitimate operational need, the refusal of employees can be met with a dismissal for operational requirements in terms of section 189 of the LRA. There has been conflicting interpretation of the application of sections 187(1)(c) and 189 in many labour court judgements. This research paper discusses the apparent conflict and its jurisprudence. In addition, a key Constitutional Court’s judgement which provides some clarity on how these sections should be interpreted is analysed. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10566/21105 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.publisher | University of the Western Cape | |
| dc.subject | Automatically unfair dismissal | |
| dc.subject | Dispute of interest | |
| dc.subject | Employer demand | |
| dc.subject | Collective bargaining | |
| dc.subject | Operational requirements | |
| dc.title | Providing clarity on the true reason for section 187(1)(c) dismissals: an examination of the various approaches by the courts | |
| dc.type | Thesis |