Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 262 views

    MRL3702 Assig2

    Uploaded by

    Tlotli Mofokeng
    Porschee and Roy's case against their employer DM for refusing to work overtime could stand in court for the following reasons: 1) DM does not have an agreement with Porschee and Roy allowing them to require overtime work, which the law requires. 2) Forcing overtime would violate the law prohibiting forced labor. 3) It would not be fair to dismiss Porschee and Roy for refusing overtime without an agreement in place. However, DM could argue in court that operational requirements due to an increased demand justified dismissing them for not working overtime, as precedence has established.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    MRL3702 Assig2

    Uploaded by

    Tlotli Mofokeng
    262 views2 pages
    Porschee and Roy's case against their employer DM for refusing to work overtime could stand in court for the following reasons: 1) DM does not have an agreement with Porschee and Roy allowing them to require overtime work, which the law requires. 2) Forcing overtime would violate the law prohibiting forced labor. 3) It would not be fair to dismiss Porschee and Roy for refusing overtime without an agreement in place. However, DM could argue in court that operational requirements due to an increased demand justified dismissing them for not working overtime, as precedence has established.

    Original Description:

    MRL3702 ASSIGNMENT 2 2021,60% pass

    Original Title

    MRL3702 assig2

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Porschee and Roy's case against their employer DM for refusing to work overtime could stand in court for the following reasons: 1) DM does not have an agreement with Porschee and Roy allowing them to require overtime work, which the law requires. 2) Forcing overtime would violate the law prohibiting forced labor. 3) It would not be fair to dismiss Porschee and Roy for refusing overtime without an agreement in place. However, DM could argue in court that operational requirements due to an increased demand justified dismissing them for not working overtime, as precedence has established.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    262 views2 pages

    MRL3702 Assig2

    Uploaded by

    Tlotli Mofokeng
    Porschee and Roy's case against their employer DM for refusing to work overtime could stand in court for the following reasons: 1) DM does not have an agreement with Porschee and Roy allowing them to require overtime work, which the law requires. 2) Forcing overtime would violate the law prohibiting forced labor. 3) It would not be fair to dismiss Porschee and Roy for refusing overtime without an agreement in place. However, DM could argue in court that operational requirements due to an increased demand justified dismissing them for not working overtime, as precedence has established.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    MRL3702

    Student number:54929482

    ASSIGNMENT 2

    Question 1

    • Porschee and Roy's case could stand in court due to the following reasons:

    According to section 10 (1 )(a) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (No. 75 of 1997) an employer
    may not require or permit an employee—
    -to work overtime except in accordance with an agreement.

    Therefore, because DM does not have an agreement with Porschee and Roy to work overtime, it would
    not be easy to deal with them if they refuse to work overtime. Overtime is voluntary and employees
    have the right to refuse.

    Every employer in South Africa must regulate the working time of each employee; with due regard to
    the family responsibilities of employees.

    DM cannot force Porschee and Roy to work overtime because all forced labour is prohibited in terms of
    section 48 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and should the employer require such employees
    to work overtime, then the hours to be worked and the basis of compensation will have to be
    negotiated between the two parties.

    Not having an overtime agreement makes things harder for an employer. Things would have been easier
    for DM if it had a clause in its employment contracts which stated that employees agree to work
    overtime when required to do so. That way, employees will be in breach of contract if they refuse to
    work overtime and disciplinary action could be taken against them.

    With regard to the above mentioned, it can furthermore be argued that it would not be substantively
    fair to dismiss Porschee and Roy.

    • In SEAWUSA v Trident Steel (1986) 7 ILJ 86 (IC) the court held that an employer can dismiss employees
    who persistently and unreasonably refuse to work overtime. That is even if there is no contractual
    obligation to do so. This means, employers can treat a case where employees would not, or cannot work
    overtime when the employer need them to as one concerning its operational requirements. Therefore,
    because DM had an increased demand of milk which required Porschee and Roy to work overtime, DM
    could argue that it could dismiss Porschee and Roy on basis of operational requirements.

    DM could furthermore argue that Porschee and Roy unreasonably refused to work overtime with
    reference to the needs of the workplace and business. Porschee and Roy's refusal to work overtime will
    have a negative effect on the business since they are two of the three employees who are trained
    milkers and are able to operate the company's technology, therefore the company will be unable to
    meet the increased milk demand. Lastly, due to a new client and the increased demand of milk, DM's
    business requirements are such that changes must be made to the employee's terms and conditions of
    employment.

    You might also like