In National Union of Mineworkers obo Masha and Others v Samancor Limited (Eastern Chromes Mines) and Others 2021 (10) BCLR 1191 (CC), LAC erred in departing from the general rule that losing parties in labour matters should not be ordered to pay the successful parties’ costs, unless there were reasons.

Authority for the position that whilst compensation is generally regarded as solatium, factors related to actual patrimonial loss may be relevant to determining compensation that is just and equitable.

The principle that individual rights are outweighed in certain circumstances is well established in our law, as indicated by a number of judgments which confirm that an individual’s right to refuse being vaccinated in terms of section 12(2)(b) of the Constitution is not cast in stone.

The publication of the revised Consolidated Directions on Occupational Health and Safety Measures in Certain Workplaces on 11 June 2021, does not mean that employers are now entitled by law to subject employees and independent contractors to mandatory vaccinations.

The developing law has been and is still being outpaced by the coronavirus pandemic, but it is quite apparent that while the employer bears the obligation to ensure that the workplace is safe, the employee also has corresponding obligations.

We know that employers must provide a safe workplace. But what are his rights, and what demands can he make on employees in implementing and managing the containment of the COVID-19 pandemic?

The Unemployment Insurance Fund's Destroyed, Affected or Looted Workplaces: Temporary Financial Relief Scheme has been established to assist the more than 75 000 workers who are receiving either reduced pay or no pay at all because their workplaces have closed due the unrest.

The answer to whether employers can force their employees to get vaccinated against Covid-19 involves weighing up individual constitutional rights against those of the public interest, consent, and in the absence of specific legislation, to inform them of the benefits.

South African companies and organisations considering using demotion as an alternative to retrenchment need to bear in mind several labour law considerations with regard to its context and correct implementation.

The general requirements for a fair dismissal based on an employer's operational requirements are to be found in section 189 of the LRA. However, section 189A provides for specific procedures and remedies for instances of large-scale retrenchment. The similarities and differences between these two sections therefore need to be considered.

In the third of four articles which look at what happens when parties refuse to participate virtually, Dr Hilda Grobler discusses the findings of the Labour Court where a party failed to attend her disciplinary hearing by linking up. She was Zoomed out of a job.

In the fourth of four articles which look at what happens when parties refuse to participate virtually, Dr Hilda Grobler discusses why there are no valid reasons for hearings not to be held virtually, in order to ensure that courts and other fora remain functional.

In the first of four articles which look at what happens when parties refuse to participate virtually, Dr Hilda Grobler summarises responses from the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) and the High Court to litigants who believe they have the right to insist on face-to-face hearings. They do not.

In the second of four articles which look at what happens when parties refuse to participate virtually, Dr Hilda Grobler discusses what happens when parties refuse to participate virtually in retrenchment consultations. It is done with reference to what the Labour Court had to say when FAWU claimed procedural unfairness when the consultation proceeded in its absence.

Ten points of interest concerning the necessity to avoid self help and to follow due process in labour disputes are discussed in the light of the recent Labour Court judgment in Mogaladi and Another v Public Protector. And replace the text in the article of No to self-help: follow due process in labour disputes with it.

The removal of directors should be carefully considered (especially) when a Director contracts with the Company for a specified period. A premature termination (unless he/she has committed a serious breach of the agreement) may entitle the aggrieved Director to damages. It is therefore critical that Companies construct their own internal procedures to deal with issues of this nature.

Dismissal is appropriate when a Covid-19 health and safety policy is breached by an employee who fails to self-isolate when they have Covid-19 symptoms, or who continues to come to work after having been tested positive for the virus.

What happens when an employee steadfastly refuses to remove a light blue hairpin in contravention of a dress code that requires hairpins to be navy blue or black?

With the rate of mental illnesses climbing due to the lockdown and the general COVID-19 situation, it is vital that employers find a way to balance the needs of business and the needs of its employees to ensure that productivity is maintained and mental health is supported.

Baloyi v Public Protector and Others 2021 (2) BCLR 101 (CC) Whether, in terms of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (the LRA), the High Court and LC enjoyed concurrent jurisdiction over an alleged unlawful termination of a fixed-term contract of employment.