|
''Murray v Minister of Defence''〔2009 (3) SA 130 (SCA).〕〔Case No. 383/2006.〕 is an important case in South African labour law. An appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Yekiso J, it was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 18 February 2008. Mpati DP, Cameron JA, Mlambo JA, Combrinck JA and Cachalia JA presided, handing down judgment on 31 March. Counsel for the appellant was KPCO von Lieres und Wilkau SC (with RB Engela); NJ Treurnicht SC (with AC Oosthuizen SC) appeared for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were Van der Spuy Attorneys, Cape Town, and Hill McHardy & Herbst Ing, Bloemfontein. The respondent was represented by the State Attorney, Cape Town, and the State Attorney, Bloemfontein. The court found that the right to fair labour practices, in section 23(1) of the Constitution, imports into the common-law contract of employment the general term that the employer will not, without reasonable and proper cause, conduct itself in a manner calculated and likely to destroy or seriously damage its relationship of confidence and trust with its employee. The court thus imposed "a new general and contractual obligation on employers"〔Basson and Christianson ''Essential Labour Law'' 47.〕—a duty of fair dealing with employees. In this the court had broken with the much-criticsed〔See Brassey ''New Labour Law'' 2-9.〕 common-law rule that "an employer is free to terminate the contract at any stage, for any reason or indeed for no reason or the worst possible reason, provided only that the requisite notice is given."〔Grogan ''Workplace Law'' 3.〕 The contract of employment, therefore, may now be relied upon where there is an overlap with section 186(2) of the Labour Relations Act〔Act 66 of 1995.〕 (LRA), or where that section does not provide for a remedy.〔Basson and Christianson ''Essential Labour Law'' 196.〕 The court also considered what constitutes constructive dismissal: that is to say, broadly speaking, resignation due to intolerable conditions at work. It found that, although certain employees are not recognised as such for the purposes of the LRA, the constitutional right to fair labour practices is nevertheless applicable to them, and that the common-law contract of employment now includes protection against constructive dismissal. The employee had a contractual right not to be dismissed. It was also held that, for a successful claim based on constructive dismissal, the employer must not only be responsible for the circumstances which induce the employee to resign; it must also be to blame for those circumstances. == Facts == Murray instituted action in the High Court in which he claimed damages for loss of income consequent upon his alleged constructive dismissal from the South African Navy, because its "continual unfair and ill-treatment" of him over a period of some two and a half years had left him with no alternative but to resign from his post. The Navy's response to the operational conundrum involving the appellant had been to offer him, immediately prior to his resignation, an alternative post at Naval Headquarters in Pretoria. The Navy made no effort, however, to explain the job to the appellant, and so he rejected the offer. Had Murray been covered by the LRA, he would have had specific remedies in terms of the Act. As the Act does not apply to members of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF), however, he relied on purely contractual grounds when he approached the High Court.〔Basson and Christianson ''Essential Labour Law'' 47.〕 The High Court found that the employment relationship had not broken down irretrievably and that none of the appellant's complaints had rendered his position intolerable or caused him to resign, and accordingly dismissed the action. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Murray v Minister of Defence」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|