LLW2601 – Assignment 2
Module: Labour Law (LLW2601)
Due Date: 26 September 2025
LLW2601 ASSIGNMENT 2
DUE DATE: 26 SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE 13:00
INSTRUCTIONS
YOUR ASSIGNMENT MUST BE TYPED AND NOT
SCANNED (NO PHOTOS ALLOWED).
USE OF AI FOR ANY PURPOSE IS NOT ALLOWED.
YOUR ANSWER FILE MUST BE SUBMITTED IN PDF
FORMAT.
ACCEPT THE TURNITIN END-USER LICENSING
AGREEMENT (EULA).
ADHERE TO THE POLICY ON ACADEMIC INTEGRITY AT
ALL TIMES.
SCRIPTS THAT DO NOT ADHERE TO THE ABOVE WILL
RECEIVE ZERO (0) MARKS.
WE USE SOUTH AFRICAN/UK ENGLISH (ORGANISE AND
NOT ORGANIZE).
, QUESTION 1
Scenario Analysis
Mr Lindani Radebe, employed as a Senior Technical Advisor at the National Department
of Housing and Infrastructure (NDHI), has been repeatedly passed over for promotion in
favour of less-experienced colleagues without explanation. After lodging a formal
grievance questioning promotion transparency, he received a written warning for
alleged “interpersonal issues” without a proper inquiry. Additionally, a performance-
linked housing subsidy, historically granted to employees with his rank, was revoked
without justification. Mr Radebe has referred these matters to the Commission for
Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA).
1. Examination of Conduct and Grounds for Challenge
Applicable Legislation:
1. Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA)
o Section 185 guarantees employees the right to fair labour practices.
o Section 186(2)(a) defines unfair labour practices as conduct relating to
promotions, benefits, or other advantages.
o Section 191(5) allows employees to refer disputes concerning unfair
labour practices to the CCMA.
2. Public Service Regulations 2016
o Require transparency and fairness in promotions and employee benefits.
o Arbitrary denial of promotion or benefits contravenes principles of equity
and accountability in public service.
Disciplinary Action:
• Issuing a written warning without conducting a proper inquiry or providing Mr
Radebe the opportunity to respond violates the audi alteram partem principle,
which is a cornerstone of procedural fairness (Sidumo and Another v Rustenburg
Platinum Mines Ltd [2007] ZACC 22).
Module: Labour Law (LLW2601)
Due Date: 26 September 2025
LLW2601 ASSIGNMENT 2
DUE DATE: 26 SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE 13:00
INSTRUCTIONS
YOUR ASSIGNMENT MUST BE TYPED AND NOT
SCANNED (NO PHOTOS ALLOWED).
USE OF AI FOR ANY PURPOSE IS NOT ALLOWED.
YOUR ANSWER FILE MUST BE SUBMITTED IN PDF
FORMAT.
ACCEPT THE TURNITIN END-USER LICENSING
AGREEMENT (EULA).
ADHERE TO THE POLICY ON ACADEMIC INTEGRITY AT
ALL TIMES.
SCRIPTS THAT DO NOT ADHERE TO THE ABOVE WILL
RECEIVE ZERO (0) MARKS.
WE USE SOUTH AFRICAN/UK ENGLISH (ORGANISE AND
NOT ORGANIZE).
, QUESTION 1
Scenario Analysis
Mr Lindani Radebe, employed as a Senior Technical Advisor at the National Department
of Housing and Infrastructure (NDHI), has been repeatedly passed over for promotion in
favour of less-experienced colleagues without explanation. After lodging a formal
grievance questioning promotion transparency, he received a written warning for
alleged “interpersonal issues” without a proper inquiry. Additionally, a performance-
linked housing subsidy, historically granted to employees with his rank, was revoked
without justification. Mr Radebe has referred these matters to the Commission for
Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA).
1. Examination of Conduct and Grounds for Challenge
Applicable Legislation:
1. Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA)
o Section 185 guarantees employees the right to fair labour practices.
o Section 186(2)(a) defines unfair labour practices as conduct relating to
promotions, benefits, or other advantages.
o Section 191(5) allows employees to refer disputes concerning unfair
labour practices to the CCMA.
2. Public Service Regulations 2016
o Require transparency and fairness in promotions and employee benefits.
o Arbitrary denial of promotion or benefits contravenes principles of equity
and accountability in public service.
Disciplinary Action:
• Issuing a written warning without conducting a proper inquiry or providing Mr
Radebe the opportunity to respond violates the audi alteram partem principle,
which is a cornerstone of procedural fairness (Sidumo and Another v Rustenburg
Platinum Mines Ltd [2007] ZACC 22).
