Only logged in customers who have purchased this product may leave a review.
LLA 385 Dismissal demanded by a third party
This category or type of dismissal is unusual, and is differentiated from substantive grounds for dismissal of an employee as there is no misconduct as such by the employee, or because the employee has been disciplined for the misconduct.
How should an employer handle a situation where employees demand that another employee be dismissed? The law on this topic is discussed in this article.
“There can be no doubt that, for management itself to dismiss a worker merely because he is Zulu, or because she is Jewish, or because he or she has HIV, would be reprehensible. For management to dismiss not directly for that reason, but because the rest of its workforce holds that reason, places management only at one remove from the opprobrious consideration. That remove is of course not without significance. It means that management will, ultimately, when it truely has no alternative, be permitted to dismiss when it cannot guarantee the safety of employees whom the rest of its workforce, for reprehensible reasons of ethnic hostility, threaten with injury or death. But it also means, in my view, that management truly must have no alternative, and that no discretionary ‘band of reasonableness’ can be granted it.” [At 1151] East Rand Proprietary Mines Ltd case.