MRL3702
ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 2 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: SEPTEMBER 2025
, Assignment 2 S2 2025
1. Whether #23&24 has the right to issue the statement above and why? (2 marks)
Yes, #23&24 has the right to issue the statement. In terms of the Labour Relations Act
66 of 1995 (LRA) and the common law duty to obey lawful and reasonable instructions,
an employer has the prerogative to manage its business operations. This includes
issuing work rosters and operational requirements such as limiting leave during peak
business periods (see National Union of Metalworkers of SA v Vetsak Co-Operative Ltd
1996 (4) SA 577 (A)). The instruction not to take leave in December is lawful and
reasonable given the business’s operational demands.
2. If #23&24 dismisses Tselani under these circumstances, which ground of
dismissal may #23&24 rely on? (2 marks)
#23&24 may rely on misconduct as a ground of dismissal if Tselani wilfully absents
himself from work despite clear instructions, or alternatively on operational
requirements if his absence severely affects business operations (LRA, s 188).
However, the most likely ground in this case would be misconduct (unauthorised
absenteeism).
3. Define the kind of ground of dismissal which #23&24 may rely on (4 marks)
Misconduct occurs when an employee breaches workplace rules or disregards
a lawful and reasonable instruction (Grogan, 2017). Unauthorised absenteeism
during a critical period, after being instructed not to take leave, constitutes
misconduct. For misconduct to justify dismissal, the employer must prove:
1. The rule or instruction was valid and reasonable.
2. The employee knew or should have known about the rule.
3. The employee deliberately breached the rule.
ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 2 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: SEPTEMBER 2025
, Assignment 2 S2 2025
1. Whether #23&24 has the right to issue the statement above and why? (2 marks)
Yes, #23&24 has the right to issue the statement. In terms of the Labour Relations Act
66 of 1995 (LRA) and the common law duty to obey lawful and reasonable instructions,
an employer has the prerogative to manage its business operations. This includes
issuing work rosters and operational requirements such as limiting leave during peak
business periods (see National Union of Metalworkers of SA v Vetsak Co-Operative Ltd
1996 (4) SA 577 (A)). The instruction not to take leave in December is lawful and
reasonable given the business’s operational demands.
2. If #23&24 dismisses Tselani under these circumstances, which ground of
dismissal may #23&24 rely on? (2 marks)
#23&24 may rely on misconduct as a ground of dismissal if Tselani wilfully absents
himself from work despite clear instructions, or alternatively on operational
requirements if his absence severely affects business operations (LRA, s 188).
However, the most likely ground in this case would be misconduct (unauthorised
absenteeism).
3. Define the kind of ground of dismissal which #23&24 may rely on (4 marks)
Misconduct occurs when an employee breaches workplace rules or disregards
a lawful and reasonable instruction (Grogan, 2017). Unauthorised absenteeism
during a critical period, after being instructed not to take leave, constitutes
misconduct. For misconduct to justify dismissal, the employer must prove:
1. The rule or instruction was valid and reasonable.
2. The employee knew or should have known about the rule.
3. The employee deliberately breached the rule.
