The doctrine of double jeopardy in the South African labour law

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisor Van Jaarsveld, Fanie en
dc.contributor.postgraduate Bekker, Sienta en
dc.date.accessioned 2013-09-07T10:57:07Z
dc.date.available 2013-08-14 en
dc.date.available 2013-09-07T10:57:07Z
dc.date.created 2013-04-18 en
dc.date.issued 2013-08-14 en
dc.date.submitted 2013-08-12 en
dc.description Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2013. en
dc.description.abstract Does the doctrine of double jeopardy preclude employer intervention or the proverbial 'second bite at the cherry'? The rigid principles of double jeopardy does not form part of our labour law dispensation. The double jeopardy principle, however, is a necessary factor that is taken into account when deciding on the fairness of subjecting an employee to further disciplinary action. Even though the employer has the primary responsibility to discipline an employee, the employer may not deviate from disciplinary procedure and standards set by itself, without justification. The employer's powers must be curtailed to some extent in order to countervail the inequality inherent in the employment relationship. A wide approach in labour disputes should be adopted when deliberating the fairness of deviating in respect of the double jeopardy rule. A disciplinary code, which is a guideline, should not be a stumbling block for fairness to prevail. Deciding against employer intervention, solely based on the absence of a provision in an employer's disciplinary code expressly providing for the right to intervene, is an unwarranted narrow approach that leads to absurd results. The wider approach necessitates consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances, not only the employer's disciplinary procedure, but including the effect of the employee's conduct on the trust relationship, public interest, the parity principle, reasonableness of the first sanction, appropriateness of the second sanction, reasonableness of the employer's decision to recharge the employee or reconsider the imposed sanction, prejudice to the parties, the time that has lapsed between the first and second disciplinary action and, essentially, the fairness to both the employee and employer. It is evident that an employer may only reconsider a decision of a properly constituted disciplinary tribunal when it is fair to do so. It will be fair to do so in exceptional circumstances. These circumstances will be extremely rare. Even where an employer reserved the right in its disciplinary procedure to 79 intervene with the decision of a disciplinary chairperson, the intervention must nevertheless, be justified. A second bite at the cherry is, therefore, possible. Identifying exceptional circumstances is not an easy task, in view of the test of fairness. Employers should therefore be conscientious in executing the important task to discipline. en
dc.description.availability unrestricted en
dc.description.department Mercantile Law en
dc.identifier.citation Bekker, S 2013, The doctrine of double jeopardy in the South African labour law, LLM dissertation, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, viewed yymmdd < http://hdl.handle.net/2263/27214 > en
dc.identifier.other F13/4/598/gm en
dc.identifier.upetdurl http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-08122013-121324/ en
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2263/27214
dc.language.iso en
dc.publisher University of Pretoria en_ZA
dc.rights © 2013 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the University of Pretoria en
dc.subject Labour law en
dc.subject South africa en
dc.subject Employer en
dc.subject Employee en
dc.subject Employment en
dc.subject UCTD en_US
dc.title The doctrine of double jeopardy in the South African labour law en
dc.type Dissertation en


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record