The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has recently confirmed that employers should take care when dismissing an employee who is entitled to participate in a permanent health insurance (PHI) scheme and is absent from work by reason of long term ill health. It held that there is an implied term that an employer will not dismiss
November 2018
Minority trade unions make good bedfellows
In UASA, Solidaity and NUM v Lonmin Platinum PLC and AMCU (HO1312-18), the CCMA was tasked with determining the question of whether three minority trade unions, acting jointly, could obtain organisational rights at Lonmin in order to challenge the influence of the majority union (AMCU).
Section 18 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995…
Brexit – English Soccer and dispute over foreign players
Another interesting and unforeseen consequence of Brexit is the power struggle that has been triggered between the Premier League and the FA in relation to post Brexit quotas for “home grown” players and the visa requirements for overseas players.
The FA is seeking to use Brexit as an opportunity to boost the longer term health…
Bill 47 receives royal assent: Changes to the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and the Labour Relations Act, 1995
On November 21, 2018, Bill 47, the Making Ontario Open for Business Act, 2018, received royal assent. Bill 47 amends both the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) and the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (LRA). The full text of Bill 47 can be found here.
The changes to the ESA come into force…
Do managers typically think of personal liability when making decisions to dismiss? They perhaps should
Directors and senior managers and their employers should consider the recent Court of Appeal decision in the Osipov whistleblowing case very carefully. Briefly, by way of scene-setting, Osipov had made a series of protected disclosures and he was ultimately dismissed as CEO of the employer company pursuant to a decision of two non-executive directors (NEDS)…
“Daddy day-care” some highlights on paternity leave
In November 2015 the Labour Laws Amendment Bill (the Bill) was tabled to parliament. The Bill was adopted with the intention of amongst others, regulating (and extending) paternity leave. As of 22 August 2018, the Bill has been passed by the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces. All that remains is…
Taking the lot: Account of profits for breach of fiduciary duty
A party affected by a breach of fiduciary duty may elect to claim equitable compensation, or to pursue an account of the profit or benefit derived by the party committing the breach and any party who knowingly assisted the breach.
Pursuing an account of profits is often more attractive because it spares the innocent party from having to prove the loss it has suffered from the breach. Such loss may be difficult to prove – for example, clients who have been snatched away by an employee in breach of his/her fiduciary obligations are unlikely to agree to give evidence about the affair.
Moreover, the value of the provable loss may be modest and compare unfavourably with the legal costs involved in obtaining the relief. The results of an account of profits can be much more substantial.
This is illustrated by a recent decision of the High Court of Australia (Ancient Order of Foresters in Victoria Friendly Society Ltd v Lifeplan Australia Friendly Society Ltd [2018] HCA 43) in which it was held that an account of profits can include the total net capital value of a business that was established by reason of the breach, including future net profits.
Family Responsibility Leave – Bereavement rights
South African labour law does not have any specific legislation solely dealing with compassionate leave in the event of bereavement. However, the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, 1997 (BCEA) provides for what is termed family responsibility leave.
The BCEA was introduced specifically to give effect to the right to fair labour practices by…
Can an employee be compelled to give evidence in a coronial inquiry where the employer is facing a WHS proceeding?
A coronial inquiry being conducted at the same time as a criminal proceeding may constitute interference with the due administration of criminal justice amounting to contempt of court.
A recent Federal Court decision[1] has considered whether the examination of an employee witness at an inquest will constitute ‘interference’ for the purposes of the criminal proceeding against the employer.
The inquest, which commenced in September 2017, was concerned with the death of Captain David Wood (Captain Wood) in Antarctica on 11 January 2016. The inquest raised questions about the responsibility of Captain Wood’s employer, Helicopter Resources Pty Ltd (Helicopter), and the responsibility of the Commonwealth. Subsequent to the commencement of the inquest, Helicopter was charged with three summary offences under Work Health and Safety Act 2011 in relation to 3 separate incidents. One of those alleged contraventions related directly to the circumstances giving rise to Captain Wood’s death.
Bill 47: Making Ontario Open for Business Act, 2018 – Employment Standards Act, 2000 Considerations
Overview
On October 23, 2018, the Ontario Government announced its much anticipated legislation in relation to employment and labour law matters. The legislation, dubbed the Making Ontario Open for Business Act, 2018 (Bill 47), will remove or modify many of the obligations placed on Ontario employers by way of the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act…