Where an employee successfully alleges that his/her resignation was involuntary and was coerced by the employer, the resignation becomes a constructive dismissal.
In order to convince an arbitrator or judge that unfair constructive dismissal has in fact taken place the employee must prove a number of things including that there was no reasonable alternative at the time but for the employee to resign in order to escape the unbearable circumstances.
This duty of the employee must not be simplistically interpreted. Passing this test will depend a great deal on whether, under the circumstances at the time, the employee could reasonably have been expected to stay on in the employer’s employ for purposes of referring the unfair labour practice dispute. Truly unendurable circumstances would make such a route unreasonable.
In the case of Makombe vs Cape Conference of the Seventh Day Adventists (Lex Info 28 March 2025 Labour Court case number CO4/2023.) the Labour Court found that employers are obligated to attend properly to serious grievances lodged by employees.
I thought it was time to update you on the mythical, much in-demand, but rarely sighted, perfect candidate - previously known as the Purple Squirrel.
This term has been used for years by recruiters to describe this rarest of candidates: the one with ideal qualifications, spot on experience, under 35 years of age, no salary expectations, and the ability to teleport to interviews.
But it’s 2025 now, and we’ve evolved.
Meet 2025’s Ideal Candidate: The SavannaSkillStacker™
A mythical creature. A unicorn in running shoes. A coffee-powered machine of productivity. This is what the ‘Purple Squirrel’ has morphed into:
Read more: Move Over Purple Squirrel! Recruiters Now Want the SavannaSkillStacker™
Generational theory offers a practical framework for understanding how collective experiences shape human behaviour across time. Scholars have traditionally delineated Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials based on birth year. Yet, as technology accelerates, these broad categories are perhaps oversimplified, much like a one-size-fits-all suit that fits no one perfectly!
In this article, I am indulging the idea of a model that is based on seven generations, each linked to a decade from 1960 to 2030, and defined by the technological and digital transformations that marked their formative or professional years. This exploration blends academic research with personal reflection (my own multi-email enthusiasm at the age of 62, versus a colleague’s single-inbox caution at the age of 72), offering a fresh perspective on how tech can rewire us.
I have used as a framework the major works in generational theory and digital transformation. Mannheim’s (1952) concept of generational identity, forged by shared historical contexts, provides a theoretical backbone. Tapscott’s (1998) analysis of the Net Generation, and Autry & Berge’s (2011) digital native-immigrant dichotomy gives us a view through a technological lens. Selwyn’s (2012) work on education’s digital shift and Vial’s work (2021) on organisational transformation both add richness to the framework.
Read more: Seven Decades of Technological Evolution: A New Generational Framework (1960–2030)
While the Labour Relations Act (LRA) and labour-related common law provide heavy protections for employee rights, the law provides very little protection for employers. In fact, labour law gives employers far more legal responsibilities than rights. The sentiment of the legislators and of the arbiters who implement the law is that employers are much more powerful than employees, and that therefore, the law must protect these vulnerable employees.
Amongst these protections is the employee’s right to swift justice. The CCMA and the Labour Courts place a great deal of responsibility on employers to ensure that employees are treated fairly, that documents needed by employees to defend themselves against disciplinary charges are made available and that discipline is not unnecessarily delayed.
An employer that fails to discipline employees timeously can be found to be waiving its right to discipline the employee, to be diluting the seriousness of the offence and to be prejudicing the accused employee’s right to access to evidence lost over time. That is, as a result of unnecessary delays workplace witnesses might leave the employer or might forget what exactly happened. Also, evidentiary documents and video evidence can get lost over time. This can result in a serious weakening of the employer’s case at arbitration.
In the case of Sepheka vs Department of Home Affairs (Lex Info 19 March 2025. Labour Court case number JR1837/20)
I recently warned employers not to rely on technicalities in trying to win labour law cases. At the core of the purpose of labour legislation is the need to ensure that unfairly treated employees receive redress with a minimum of time wasting and technicalities.
Unfair dismissal refers to a multitude of sins including firings for misconduct or poor performance, incapacity dismissals, discriminatory dismissals, constructive dismissals, retrenchments or any other unfair termination of the employment by the employer.
When it has been found that an employee has been unfairly dismissed the Labour Relations Act (LRA) requires arbitrators and judges to use reinstatement as the remedy of first resort. A reinstatement order, forcing the employer to take the employee back (often with full back pay), must be considered ahead of any other remedy.
The requirement for reinstatement to be implemented is limited where the dismissal was only procedurally unfair, or the employee prefers not to be reinstated or reinstatement would be intolerable or impractical.
Page 1 of 74
