{"title":"法律难题--合理便利的义务:对南非法律援助署诉詹森案的评论 2020 41 ILJ 2580 (LAC)","authors":"Estie Gresse, Werner Gresse","doi":"10.17159/1727-3781/2024/v27i0a14641","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Persons with disabiliites are a historically marginalised minority, but they do possess the capacity to make a valuable contribution in the workplace. Disabilty in no way dimisses the right of individuals to be employed and to make a contribution to the labour market and the economy at large. Recent case law suggests that the duty to reasonably accommodate disabled respondents remains a conundrum for both respondents and employers in South Africa. In Legal Aid South Africa v Jansen 2020 41 ILJ 2580 (LAC) the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) overturned a judgment by the Labour Court that found that Legal Aid unfairly discriminated against a respondent with depression. In 2018, the Labour Court ordered Legal Aid to reinstate Mr Jansen in that it had acted unfairly as his depression was most likely the true cause for his misconduct. On appeal, the LAC emphasised that in order to prove automatic unfair dismissal an applicant must prove both factual and legal causation. The LAC further found that the most dominant reason for Mr Jansen's dismissal was his misconduct and not his depression. Nonetheless, the LAC emphasised that depression is a prevalent illness in the current work environment and that all employers have a duty to deal with depression in a sympathetic manner and were reminded of their obligation to investigate the disability fully, to consider reasonable accommodation and to consider alternatives short of dismissal. Respondents were also reminded of the fact that they need to co-operate with their employers. Whilst South Africa has made significant progress in enacting legislation, codes, and guidelines to lay the foundation for reasonable accommodation, role-players, with specific reference to employers and the judiciary, often overlook these detailed guidelines, especially in cases where the employee suffers from depression. Disabilty is often used interchangeably with incapacity, which is problematic. This article argues that employers should follow a broad interpretation of the guidelines contained in the Code of Good Practice: Key Aspects on the Employment of People with Disabilities (2002), as well as the Technical Assistance Guidelines. Multi-party consultations and investigations need to be conducted, with the assistance of experts, if needs be. It is further suggested that until South Africa has targeted legislation and policies which make disability management functions mandatory, reasonable accommodation will remain a conundrum.","PeriodicalId":510405,"journal":{"name":"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal","volume":"100 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Legal Conundrum - The Duty to Reasonably Accommodate: A Comment on Legal Aid South Africa v Jansen 2020 41 ILJ 2580 (LAC)\",\"authors\":\"Estie Gresse, Werner Gresse\",\"doi\":\"10.17159/1727-3781/2024/v27i0a14641\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Persons with disabiliites are a historically marginalised minority, but they do possess the capacity to make a valuable contribution in the workplace. Disabilty in no way dimisses the right of individuals to be employed and to make a contribution to the labour market and the economy at large. Recent case law suggests that the duty to reasonably accommodate disabled respondents remains a conundrum for both respondents and employers in South Africa. In Legal Aid South Africa v Jansen 2020 41 ILJ 2580 (LAC) the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) overturned a judgment by the Labour Court that found that Legal Aid unfairly discriminated against a respondent with depression. In 2018, the Labour Court ordered Legal Aid to reinstate Mr Jansen in that it had acted unfairly as his depression was most likely the true cause for his misconduct. On appeal, the LAC emphasised that in order to prove automatic unfair dismissal an applicant must prove both factual and legal causation. The LAC further found that the most dominant reason for Mr Jansen's dismissal was his misconduct and not his depression. Nonetheless, the LAC emphasised that depression is a prevalent illness in the current work environment and that all employers have a duty to deal with depression in a sympathetic manner and were reminded of their obligation to investigate the disability fully, to consider reasonable accommodation and to consider alternatives short of dismissal. Respondents were also reminded of the fact that they need to co-operate with their employers. Whilst South Africa has made significant progress in enacting legislation, codes, and guidelines to lay the foundation for reasonable accommodation, role-players, with specific reference to employers and the judiciary, often overlook these detailed guidelines, especially in cases where the employee suffers from depression. Disabilty is often used interchangeably with incapacity, which is problematic. This article argues that employers should follow a broad interpretation of the guidelines contained in the Code of Good Practice: Key Aspects on the Employment of People with Disabilities (2002), as well as the Technical Assistance Guidelines. Multi-party consultations and investigations need to be conducted, with the assistance of experts, if needs be. It is further suggested that until South Africa has targeted legislation and policies which make disability management functions mandatory, reasonable accommodation will remain a conundrum.\",\"PeriodicalId\":510405,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"100 11\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2024/v27i0a14641\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2024/v27i0a14641","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
残疾人是历史上被边缘化的少数群体,但他们确实有能力在工作场所做出宝贵的贡献。残疾丝毫不会削弱个人就业和为劳动力市场及整个经济做出贡献的权利。最近的判例法表明,在南非,为残疾应聘者提供合理便利的义务仍然是应聘者和雇主共同面临的难题。在 Legal Aid South Africa v Jansen 2020 41 ILJ 2580 (LAC) 一案中,劳工上诉法院(LAC)推翻了劳工法院的判决,该判决认定法律援助机构不公平地歧视了一名患有抑郁症的答辩人。2018 年,劳资争议法庭命令法律援助署恢复 Jansen 先生的职务,理由是他的抑郁症很可能是导致其行为不当的真正原因,因此法律援助署的行为有失公允。在上诉中,法援会强调,为了证明自动的不公平解雇,申请人必须同时证明事实和法律上的因果关系。法援会还认为,导致 Jansen 先生被解雇的最主要原因是他的不当行为,而不是他的抑郁症。尽管如此,法援会强调抑郁症是当前工作环境中的一种普遍疾病,所有雇主都有责任以同情的态度对待抑郁症,并提醒他们有义务全面调查残疾情况,考虑合理的便利措施,并考虑解雇以外的其他选择。还提醒受访者需要与雇主合作。虽然南非在颁布立法、法规和指导方针以奠定合理便利基础方面取得了重大进展,但角色扮演者,特别是雇主和司法机构,往往忽视了这些详细的指导方针,尤其是在雇员患有抑郁症的情况下。残疾(Disabilty)与丧失工作能力(incapacity)经常被交替使用,这是有问题的。本文认为,雇主应从广义上解释《良好行为规范》中的准则:残疾人就业的关键方面》(2002 年)以及《技术援助指南》中的指导方针。必要时,需要在专家的协助下进行多方磋商和调查。还有人建议,在南非制定有针对性的立法和政策,强制规定残疾管理职能之前,合理便利仍 将是一个难题。
A Legal Conundrum - The Duty to Reasonably Accommodate: A Comment on Legal Aid South Africa v Jansen 2020 41 ILJ 2580 (LAC)
Persons with disabiliites are a historically marginalised minority, but they do possess the capacity to make a valuable contribution in the workplace. Disabilty in no way dimisses the right of individuals to be employed and to make a contribution to the labour market and the economy at large. Recent case law suggests that the duty to reasonably accommodate disabled respondents remains a conundrum for both respondents and employers in South Africa. In Legal Aid South Africa v Jansen 2020 41 ILJ 2580 (LAC) the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) overturned a judgment by the Labour Court that found that Legal Aid unfairly discriminated against a respondent with depression. In 2018, the Labour Court ordered Legal Aid to reinstate Mr Jansen in that it had acted unfairly as his depression was most likely the true cause for his misconduct. On appeal, the LAC emphasised that in order to prove automatic unfair dismissal an applicant must prove both factual and legal causation. The LAC further found that the most dominant reason for Mr Jansen's dismissal was his misconduct and not his depression. Nonetheless, the LAC emphasised that depression is a prevalent illness in the current work environment and that all employers have a duty to deal with depression in a sympathetic manner and were reminded of their obligation to investigate the disability fully, to consider reasonable accommodation and to consider alternatives short of dismissal. Respondents were also reminded of the fact that they need to co-operate with their employers. Whilst South Africa has made significant progress in enacting legislation, codes, and guidelines to lay the foundation for reasonable accommodation, role-players, with specific reference to employers and the judiciary, often overlook these detailed guidelines, especially in cases where the employee suffers from depression. Disabilty is often used interchangeably with incapacity, which is problematic. This article argues that employers should follow a broad interpretation of the guidelines contained in the Code of Good Practice: Key Aspects on the Employment of People with Disabilities (2002), as well as the Technical Assistance Guidelines. Multi-party consultations and investigations need to be conducted, with the assistance of experts, if needs be. It is further suggested that until South Africa has targeted legislation and policies which make disability management functions mandatory, reasonable accommodation will remain a conundrum.