Constructive dismissal in labour law

• Main Author: Van Loggerenberg, Johannes Jurgens
• Format: Others
• Language: English
• Published: University of Port Elizabeth 2003
• Subjects: Employees > Dismissal of > Law and legislation > South Africa; Unfair labor practices > South Africa; Labor laws and legislation > South Africa
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/301

The history of constructive dismissals in South Africa imitated from the English law in 1986, when an employee successfully challenged the employer on this particular concept after an incident relating a forced resignation. From the literature it is clear that constructive dismissal, as we know it today, originated from our English counterparts. Being a relatively new concept, the South African labour laws caught on at a rapid pace. The leading case on which the South African authors leaned towards was the English case of Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough). In South Africa constructive dismissals were given statutory force in unfair dismissal law and is defined as the coerced or forced termination of a contract of employment resultant in from the conduct of the employer. There are many forms in which constructive dismissals would postulate that could justify an employee to lay claim to constructive dismissal. Examples thereof are the amendment of the contract of employment, rude language and sexual harassment. It is eminent that certain elements should be present before an employee would have reasonable prospects of succeeding with such a claim. Constructive dismissal comes into the equation when an employer behaves in such a manner that eventually and ultimately leads to the employee, being the receiving party, in the employment relationship, to terminate the employment contract. This termination must be the direct result of the conduct of the employer that irreparably frustrated the relationship and made it impossible for the employee to remain in the service of the employer in question. It appears that the courts have taken a firm stance on coerced or forced resignation, in its various forms tantamount to breach of contact, that any sufficiently unreasonable conduct by an employer may justify that the employee to terminate services and lay claim to the fact that he had been constructively dismissed. It needs to be mentioned that the fact that the mere fact that the employer acted in an unreasonable manner would not suffice and it is up to the employee to prove how the conduct of the employer justified the employee to leave and claim that the employer’s conduct resulted in a material or fundamental beach of the employment contract. In dealing with the contingency of the concept of constructive dismissals it has been expressly provided for in numerous systems of labour law. As is seen herein, a constructive dismissal consists in the termination of the employment contract by reason of the employee’s rather than the employer’s own immediate act. The act of the employee is precipitated by earlier conduct on the part of the employer, which conduct may or may not be justified. Various authors and academics endeavoured to defined constructive dismissal and all had the same or at least some of the elements present, to justify constructive dismissal. The most glaring element being the termination of employment as a result of the any conduct that is tantamount to a breach going to the root of the relationship by the employer, that frustrated the relationship between the employer and the employee and rendered it irreparable. The employee resigns or repudiates the employment contract as a result of the employer normally not leaving the employee any other option but to resign. This can also be termed as coerced or forced resignations and are commonly better known as “constructive dismissal”. The employee is deemed to have been dismissed, even though it is the employee who terminated the employment contract. The most important element to mention is the employee terminated the employment contract, ie resigned yet this is regarded as a dismissal, it is however for the employee to first lay a claim at the proper authority and the employee must prove his / her allegation before it can be a constructive dismissal. As will become clear, that the onus of proof is on the employee to show that the termination of employment resulted from the conduct of the employer. Equally true as in all cases of constructive dismissal, including cases of sexual harassment, being a ground for constructive dismissal, the employee must prove that to remain in service would have been unbearable and intolerable. Sexual harassment is one of the most difficult forms of constructive dismissals, in many cases there are no witnesses and the employee either “suffers in silence or opt to place her dignity at stake to prove her case. It seems as though the test is to determine if the employer’s conduct evinced a deliberate and oppressive intention to have the employment terminated and left the employee with only one option that of resignation to protect her interests. Employees have a right to seek statutory relief and needs to be protected. If a coerced or forced resignation had taken place irrespective whether the employee resigned or not. It is against this back drop that constructive dismissals was given legality and are now recognized as one of the four forms of dismissals in terms of the Act.