Derivative Misconduct and the Employee’s Duty to Act Bona Fide
Ncukana / AF Brands (Pty) Ltd [2022] 7 BALR 737 (CCMA)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v12i7.2868Keywords:
Derivative misconduct, good faith, trust relationship, doctrine of common purposeAbstract
In what circumstances may an employer dismiss an employee who deliberately chooses not to disclose information even though she/he was expressly requested to do so? Can a negative inference be drawn against the said employee? These questions are examined within the context of derivative misconduct which emphasises a duty placed upon employees to disclose any misconduct perpetrated by fellow employees. This duty arises out of the implied common law duty of good faith that an employee owes to his/her employer by virtue of the contract of employment. The duty of good faith is a sacrosanct principle of any employment relationship, the breach of which justifies an employee’s dismissal.
Downloads
References
Bakenrug Meat (Pty) Ltd t/a Joostenberg Meat v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration & others (2022) 43 ILJ 1272 (LAC)
Bassuday, K. (2016) Derivative misconduct and an employee's duty of good faith: Western Platinum Refinery Ltd v Hlebela & others (2015) 36 ILJ 2280 (LAC) Industrial Law Journal 37, 86-91
Chauke & others v Lee Service Centre CC t/a Leeson Motors (1998) 19 ILJ 1441 (LAC)
Council for Scientific & Industrial Research v Fijen 1996 (2) SA 1 (A); (1996) 17 ILJ 18 (A)
Federal Council Retail and Allied Workers v Snip Trading (2007) 7 BLAR 669 (T)
Food & Allied Workers Union on behalf of Kapesi v Premier Foods Ltd t/a Blue Ribbon Salt River (2012) 33 ILJ 1779 (LAC).
Foschini Group v Maidi and Others (2010) 31 ILJ 1787 (LAC)
Grogan, J. (2022) Workplace Law 13th ed Juta
Grogan, J. Derivative misconduct (2004) Employment Law Journal 20, 15
Maloka, T. C., (2016) Derivative misconduct and forms thereof: Western Refinery Ltd v Hlebela 2015 36 ILJ 2280 (LAC) PER/PELJ 19, 1-16 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2016/v19i0a733
National Union of Metalworkers of SA on behalf of Dhuludhlu and 147 others v Marley Pipe System SA (Pty) (2022) 43 ILJ 2269 (CC)
National Union of Metalworkers of SA on behalf of Nganezi & others v Dunlop Mixing & Technical Services (Pty) Ltd & others (Casual Workers Advice Office as Amicus Curiae) (2019) 40 ILJ 1957 (CC)
National Union of Mineworkers & others and RSA Geological Services (A Division of De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd) (2004) 25 ILJ 410 (ARB)
Ncukana / AF Brands (Pty) Ltd [2022] 7 BALR 737 (CCMA).
Poppesqou, T. (2018) The sounds of silence: The evolution of the concept of derivative misconduct and the role of inferences (2018) 39 Industrial Law Journal 39, 34-49
R v Garnsworthy 1923 WLD 17.
S v Mgedezi [1989] 2 All SA 13 (A)
SA Commercial Catering & Allied Workers Union & others v Makgopela NO & others (2023) 44 ILJ 1229 (LAC)
Sappi Novoboard (Pty) Ltd v Bolleurs (1998) 19 ILJ 784 (LAC)
Sibiya, S. W., Calvino, L. R., & Iyer, D. (2023) Judicial scrutiny of derivative misconduct in South African employment law: A careful approach to the duty to speak obiter 106-121.
Tshabalala v The State; Ntuli v The State 2020 (5) SA 1 (CC)
Western Platinum Refinery Ltd v Hlebela & Others (2015) 36 ILJ 2280 (LAC)
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Carlos Joel Tchawouo Mbiada, Livhuwani Sosanah Lavhengwa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
For all articles published in IJRBS, copyright is retained by the authors. Articles are licensed under an open access Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, meaning that anyone may download and read the paper for free. In addition, the article may be reused and quoted provided that the original published version is cited. These conditions allow for maximum use and exposure of the work, while ensuring that the authors receive proper credit.
