根据1995年第66号《劳动关系法》第186(2)条,什么构成福利?阿波罗轮胎南非有限公司诉CCMA 2013 5 BLLR 434 (LAC)

E. Fourie
{"title":"根据1995年第66号《劳动关系法》第186(2)条,什么构成福利?阿波罗轮胎南非有限公司诉CCMA 2013 5 BLLR 434 (LAC)","authors":"E. Fourie","doi":"10.4314/PELJ.V18I1.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The uncertainty surrounding the concept benefit as provided for in section 186(2) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 was created not by the courts but rather by the legislature. The concept is not defined and clearly has a wide ambit. In previous decisions the courts upheld a restrictive interpretation of benefits to maintain the divide between disputes of interest and disputes of rights and to ensure that issues that should be the subject of negotiation could not become issues that can be decided by an arbitrator. Previously the courts insisted that a benefit was something arising out of a contract or law. In the Apollo case the court had to determine what constitutes a benefit and if a benefit is limited to an entitlement which arises ex contractu or ex lege. The court found that the early retirement scheme was a benefit, although the employee at that stage did not have a contractual entitlement to the benefit and that the benefit was subject to the employer's discretion. What becomes clear from this case is that the unfair labour practice jurisdiction cannot be used to assert an entitlement to new benefits, new forms of remuneration or new policies. The Labour Appeal Court criticizes the distinction between salaries and remuneration drawn by our courts and describes it as artificial and unsustainable. Under the unfair labour practice regime the conduct of the employer may be scrutinized by the CCMA in at least two instances, namely when an employer fails to comply with a contractual obligation, an entitlement or right that an employee may have in terms of a statute, and secondly when an employer exercises a discretion under the contractual terms of a scheme conferring a benefit, including situations where the employer enjoys a discretion in terms of benefits provided in terms of a policy or practice - rights created judicially. This decision places the emphasis on the employer's actions and the unfairness of such acts or omissions.","PeriodicalId":431496,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Employment Statutes (Topic)","volume":"493 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Constitutes a Benefit by Virtue of Section 186(2) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995? Apollo Tyres South Africa (Pty) Ltd v CCMA 2013 5 BLLR 434 (LAC)\",\"authors\":\"E. Fourie\",\"doi\":\"10.4314/PELJ.V18I1.11\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The uncertainty surrounding the concept benefit as provided for in section 186(2) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 was created not by the courts but rather by the legislature. The concept is not defined and clearly has a wide ambit. In previous decisions the courts upheld a restrictive interpretation of benefits to maintain the divide between disputes of interest and disputes of rights and to ensure that issues that should be the subject of negotiation could not become issues that can be decided by an arbitrator. Previously the courts insisted that a benefit was something arising out of a contract or law. In the Apollo case the court had to determine what constitutes a benefit and if a benefit is limited to an entitlement which arises ex contractu or ex lege. The court found that the early retirement scheme was a benefit, although the employee at that stage did not have a contractual entitlement to the benefit and that the benefit was subject to the employer's discretion. What becomes clear from this case is that the unfair labour practice jurisdiction cannot be used to assert an entitlement to new benefits, new forms of remuneration or new policies. The Labour Appeal Court criticizes the distinction between salaries and remuneration drawn by our courts and describes it as artificial and unsustainable. Under the unfair labour practice regime the conduct of the employer may be scrutinized by the CCMA in at least two instances, namely when an employer fails to comply with a contractual obligation, an entitlement or right that an employee may have in terms of a statute, and secondly when an employer exercises a discretion under the contractual terms of a scheme conferring a benefit, including situations where the employer enjoys a discretion in terms of benefits provided in terms of a policy or practice - rights created judicially. This decision places the emphasis on the employer's actions and the unfairness of such acts or omissions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":431496,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Employment Statutes (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"493 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-02-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Employment Statutes (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4314/PELJ.V18I1.11\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Employment Statutes (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4314/PELJ.V18I1.11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

1995年第66号《劳工关系法》第186(2)条所规定的福利概念的不确定性不是由法院而是由立法机关造成的。这个概念没有定义,显然有一个广泛的范围。在以前的判决中,法院支持对利益的限制性解释,以维持利益争端和权利争端之间的区别,并确保应作为谈判主题的问题不会成为可以由仲裁员决定的问题。以前,法院坚持认为利益是由合同或法律产生的。在阿波罗案中,法院必须确定什么构成利益,以及利益是否仅限于依合同或依法律产生的权利。法院认定,提早退休计划是一种福利,尽管雇员在当时没有合同规定的享有该福利的权利,而且该福利取决于雇主的酌情决定。从这个案例中可以清楚地看出,不公平劳工做法的管辖权不能用来主张获得新福利、新形式的薪酬或新政策的权利。劳工上诉法庭批评我国法院对工资和报酬的区分,认为这是人为的、不可持续的。在不公平劳工实务制度下,CCMA至少在两种情况下审查雇主的行为,即当雇主未能履行合同义务、雇员在法律方面可能享有的权利或权利时,以及当雇主根据合同条款行使自由裁量权时给予福利计划。包括雇主对某项政策或做法所提供的福利享有自由裁量权的情况,即司法规定的权利。这一决定强调了雇主的行为以及这种行为或不行为的不公平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What Constitutes a Benefit by Virtue of Section 186(2) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995? Apollo Tyres South Africa (Pty) Ltd v CCMA 2013 5 BLLR 434 (LAC)
The uncertainty surrounding the concept benefit as provided for in section 186(2) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 was created not by the courts but rather by the legislature. The concept is not defined and clearly has a wide ambit. In previous decisions the courts upheld a restrictive interpretation of benefits to maintain the divide between disputes of interest and disputes of rights and to ensure that issues that should be the subject of negotiation could not become issues that can be decided by an arbitrator. Previously the courts insisted that a benefit was something arising out of a contract or law. In the Apollo case the court had to determine what constitutes a benefit and if a benefit is limited to an entitlement which arises ex contractu or ex lege. The court found that the early retirement scheme was a benefit, although the employee at that stage did not have a contractual entitlement to the benefit and that the benefit was subject to the employer's discretion. What becomes clear from this case is that the unfair labour practice jurisdiction cannot be used to assert an entitlement to new benefits, new forms of remuneration or new policies. The Labour Appeal Court criticizes the distinction between salaries and remuneration drawn by our courts and describes it as artificial and unsustainable. Under the unfair labour practice regime the conduct of the employer may be scrutinized by the CCMA in at least two instances, namely when an employer fails to comply with a contractual obligation, an entitlement or right that an employee may have in terms of a statute, and secondly when an employer exercises a discretion under the contractual terms of a scheme conferring a benefit, including situations where the employer enjoys a discretion in terms of benefits provided in terms of a policy or practice - rights created judicially. This decision places the emphasis on the employer's actions and the unfairness of such acts or omissions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信