lOMoAR cPSD| 16857960
, lOMoAR cPSD| 16857960
UNIVERSITY EXAMINATIONS
May/June 2025
LRM3702
Labour Relations Management: Micro
75 marks
Duration: 4 hours
EXAMINERS:
FIRST EXAMINER: Dr AM Snyman
SECOND EXAMINER: Dr M Kirsten
INTERNAL MODERATOR: Dr AJ Deas
EXTERNAL MODERATOR: Dr R Venter
This paper consists of 6 pages.
Please note that the current Unisa Online Examination Rules apply to this LRM3702 examination and must
be strictly followed.
INSTRUCTIONS:
(1) Academic Integrity: Unisa upholds a zero-tolerance policy against plagiarism and any other forms of academic
dishonesty. It is, therefore, crucial to strictly follow all Unisa policies on plagiarism, academic integrity and
copyright infringement. Students suspected of engaging in dishonest behaviour during the examination will face
disciplinary actions.
(2) Technical Requirements:
• Please ensure that your submission includes a cover page containing your module code, semester and
year of registration, full name, and student number.
• Your answers must follow the cover page, be clearly numbered according to the assignment questions,
typed in Arial font size 12 with 1.5 line spacing, and submitted as a single PDF document. Submissions
(handwritten or typed) that contain scanned text will not be accepted.
(3) Proctoring: This open-book exam is proctored using The Invigilator App and Turnitin.
• Invigilator App: Activate it at the start by scanning the QR code on page 2 of the exam paper.
• Turnitin and Honesty Declaration: You will be prompted to accept the Turnitin EULA and the
Honesty Declaration when submitting your answer file. Accepting will automatically submit your file to
Turnitin.
(4) Submission Format: Upload your typed answers as a single PDF file to the myExams platform immediately
after completion. Handwritten or scanned documents will not be accepted.
(5) Submission Deadline and Support: You have a 30-minute grace period after the official exam end time to
submit your answer file. For technical issues during the exam or submission, immediately (within 30 minutes of
the exam end) email using your myLife email account. Late queries or
submissions will not be considered.
, [TURN OVER]
THE INVIGILATOR APP
ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS – THERE ARE NO ELECTIVE QUESTIONS.
All the questions in this examination are based on the following case study. Remember that your answers
must relate to the case study. No marks will be awarded for simply copying and pasting information from
the related lessons, chapters in your prescribed book or any other source.
RELATIONS GONE BAD
Safersavings is a medium-sized retail company with several stores in the rural areas of KwaZuluNatal, including
Ladysmith, Newcastle, Dundee, Ulundi, and Estcourt. The managers of each store meet every Monday via a
WhatsApp call to share sales updates and ideas, as they do not meet physically due to the cost of fuel. The
company upgraded its technology in its stores a few months ago because it wanted to achieve greater efficiency.
Sipho, the chief shop steward of the Retail Workers’ Union (RWU) (which has been recognised for collective
bargaining purposes for a few years) and Anwar, an active union member, both based at the company’s main
store in Ladysmith, have been employed by the company for many years as packers and general labourers. Both
are quite ambitious and, although it was not their job to operate computer terminals, they slowly taught themselves
how to operate the terminals in the store as they were keen to improve their skills and educational level. They did
so well that after a few months, they had mastered the computer in the store and were performing the jobs of
computer operators by voluntarily helping out as and when needed, as the company was short-staffed. They felt
that they should receive some recognition and perhaps some additional remuneration for their efforts and
willingness to learn.
Sipho then approached the store supervisor and asked that the company regrade him and Anwar upwards, as he
maintained that they were now performing work of a higher grade. The store’s supervisor, having been able to
rely on Sipho and Anwar’s skills, had not himself mastered the terminal. He feared that Sipho and Anwar were
trying to replace him, so he said he would look into the matter, but, despite numerous reminders to him, he did
nothing. Sipho and Anwar then approached the factory manager and demanded that he immediately regrade them
upwards as they were now performing the job of computer operators. He said that he would consider their demand
and come back to them. He was willing to recognise their efforts, but was worried about the cost of doing this.
He then spoke to the company’s general manager. His attitude was that recognition might have been due to Sipho
and Anwar, but that job grading was a management prerogative. He feared that if they talked to Sipho, as senior
shop steward, about job grading, this would set a dangerous precedent and would constitute a victory for the union
in its pursuit of greater workplace control. He believed that the demand was a union-inspired attempt to dictate
to management. Although the factory manager wanted to discuss the matter with the workers to find a satisfactory
outcome, the general manager decided that it would be best not to respond to Sipho and Anwar because any
response would constitute a concession to negotiate about a management prerogative.
Sipho and Anwar eventually decided that if the company was not prepared to regrade them, then they would stop
using the computer and revert to the manual method they had used in the past. On the first day of their refusal,
they received an oral warning for failing to use the computer and they were instructed by their supervisor that
they should use the computer in future. Sipho and Anwar were convinced that they could not be forced to use the
computer and were determined to pressurise the company into giving them the recognition they demanded. They
knew that the company needed their computer skills, and they believed that if they withheld them, the company
would be forced to concede. They therefore continued with their refusal. The company then gave them written
warnings for failing to obey reasonable instructions, as it hoped this would persuade Sipho and Anwar to resume
using the computer. When they continued with their refusal, they were given final written warnings for
insubordination. On the following day, they had a major altercation with their supervisor when he instructed them
to use the computer. They informed him that they were sick and tired of being messed around by the company
and that the company could do what it liked but they would not use the computers until they were upgraded.
Sipho and Anwar were then summoned to a disciplinary enquiry and dismissed for insubordination after a full
hearing.
, lOMoAR cPSD| 16857960
The workers at the company were incensed at the dismissal of a senior shop steward and were convinced that
the real reason for the dismissal was that the company wanted to get rid of the union. They therefore stopped
work and demanded Sipho and Anwar’s reinstatement. The company informed them that their work stoppage
was unprocedural and illegal and that they would not talk to them until they returned to work. The workers did
not heed management’s request and began singing and marching in the car park. Its non-union workers
approached the company. They demanded safe custody out of the company premises and warned the company
that they expected the company to take firm action against what they called the workers’ “illegal mass action”.
They were frightened and felt that the company was always giving in to the union.
The workers continued with their strike the following day. The company’s lawyers suggested that they resolve
the dispute by going to court for an injunction ordering the striking workers to return to work. The company
gave the workers an ultimatum to return to work. When they did not heed the ultimatum, they were dismissed.
The company’s attorneys advised the company that they were fully entitled to dismiss illegal strikers and that
they would win any action brought by the workers in the Labour Court. The union was anxious not to lose its
membership at the company and it approached the company. It suggested that the strikers be reinstated. The
company refused, and the union then suggested that the case of Sipho and Anwar be taken to an independent
arbitrator for determination.
When the company refused, the union launched a consumer boycott against the company with the support of
various sympathetic, political, and church organisations. Although the strike and the boycott caused the company
significant harm, it felt morally obliged to stand its ground against the union and its supporters because it
believed that their real intention was either to destroy it or to take it over.
The workers, on the other hand, believed that the company was determined to rid itself of the union. They felt
that Sipho and Anwar’s original demand was reasonable, and they felt that they had to fight to the bitter end for
their jobs.
Source: Adapted from Nel, P.S., Kirsten, M., Swanepoel, B.J., Erasmus, B.J. & Jordaan, B. 2016. South African
Employment Relations, theory and practice. 8th edition. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
QUESTION 1
Evaluate the legality of Sipho and Anwar's refusal to use the computers as well as the fairness of their dismissals,
based on the provisions in the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA). In your analysis, consider the definitions
of insubordination and the criteria for fair dismissals outlined in the LRA. What alternative actions might they have
pursued to address their complaints regarding job grading? (15)
Total for Question 1: [15]
QUESTION 1
Evaluate the legality of Sipho and Anwar’s refusal to use the computers
and the fairness of their dismissals; consider the LRA’s definition of
insubordination, criteria for fair dismissal, and alternative actions they
could have taken.
1. Introduction
, lOMoAR cPSD| 16857960
UNIVERSITY EXAMINATIONS
May/June 2025
LRM3702
Labour Relations Management: Micro
75 marks
Duration: 4 hours
EXAMINERS:
FIRST EXAMINER: Dr AM Snyman
SECOND EXAMINER: Dr M Kirsten
INTERNAL MODERATOR: Dr AJ Deas
EXTERNAL MODERATOR: Dr R Venter
This paper consists of 6 pages.
Please note that the current Unisa Online Examination Rules apply to this LRM3702 examination and must
be strictly followed.
INSTRUCTIONS:
(1) Academic Integrity: Unisa upholds a zero-tolerance policy against plagiarism and any other forms of academic
dishonesty. It is, therefore, crucial to strictly follow all Unisa policies on plagiarism, academic integrity and
copyright infringement. Students suspected of engaging in dishonest behaviour during the examination will face
disciplinary actions.
(2) Technical Requirements:
• Please ensure that your submission includes a cover page containing your module code, semester and
year of registration, full name, and student number.
• Your answers must follow the cover page, be clearly numbered according to the assignment questions,
typed in Arial font size 12 with 1.5 line spacing, and submitted as a single PDF document. Submissions
(handwritten or typed) that contain scanned text will not be accepted.
(3) Proctoring: This open-book exam is proctored using The Invigilator App and Turnitin.
• Invigilator App: Activate it at the start by scanning the QR code on page 2 of the exam paper.
• Turnitin and Honesty Declaration: You will be prompted to accept the Turnitin EULA and the
Honesty Declaration when submitting your answer file. Accepting will automatically submit your file to
Turnitin.
(4) Submission Format: Upload your typed answers as a single PDF file to the myExams platform immediately
after completion. Handwritten or scanned documents will not be accepted.
(5) Submission Deadline and Support: You have a 30-minute grace period after the official exam end time to
submit your answer file. For technical issues during the exam or submission, immediately (within 30 minutes of
the exam end) email using your myLife email account. Late queries or
submissions will not be considered.
, [TURN OVER]
THE INVIGILATOR APP
ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS – THERE ARE NO ELECTIVE QUESTIONS.
All the questions in this examination are based on the following case study. Remember that your answers
must relate to the case study. No marks will be awarded for simply copying and pasting information from
the related lessons, chapters in your prescribed book or any other source.
RELATIONS GONE BAD
Safersavings is a medium-sized retail company with several stores in the rural areas of KwaZuluNatal, including
Ladysmith, Newcastle, Dundee, Ulundi, and Estcourt. The managers of each store meet every Monday via a
WhatsApp call to share sales updates and ideas, as they do not meet physically due to the cost of fuel. The
company upgraded its technology in its stores a few months ago because it wanted to achieve greater efficiency.
Sipho, the chief shop steward of the Retail Workers’ Union (RWU) (which has been recognised for collective
bargaining purposes for a few years) and Anwar, an active union member, both based at the company’s main
store in Ladysmith, have been employed by the company for many years as packers and general labourers. Both
are quite ambitious and, although it was not their job to operate computer terminals, they slowly taught themselves
how to operate the terminals in the store as they were keen to improve their skills and educational level. They did
so well that after a few months, they had mastered the computer in the store and were performing the jobs of
computer operators by voluntarily helping out as and when needed, as the company was short-staffed. They felt
that they should receive some recognition and perhaps some additional remuneration for their efforts and
willingness to learn.
Sipho then approached the store supervisor and asked that the company regrade him and Anwar upwards, as he
maintained that they were now performing work of a higher grade. The store’s supervisor, having been able to
rely on Sipho and Anwar’s skills, had not himself mastered the terminal. He feared that Sipho and Anwar were
trying to replace him, so he said he would look into the matter, but, despite numerous reminders to him, he did
nothing. Sipho and Anwar then approached the factory manager and demanded that he immediately regrade them
upwards as they were now performing the job of computer operators. He said that he would consider their demand
and come back to them. He was willing to recognise their efforts, but was worried about the cost of doing this.
He then spoke to the company’s general manager. His attitude was that recognition might have been due to Sipho
and Anwar, but that job grading was a management prerogative. He feared that if they talked to Sipho, as senior
shop steward, about job grading, this would set a dangerous precedent and would constitute a victory for the union
in its pursuit of greater workplace control. He believed that the demand was a union-inspired attempt to dictate
to management. Although the factory manager wanted to discuss the matter with the workers to find a satisfactory
outcome, the general manager decided that it would be best not to respond to Sipho and Anwar because any
response would constitute a concession to negotiate about a management prerogative.
Sipho and Anwar eventually decided that if the company was not prepared to regrade them, then they would stop
using the computer and revert to the manual method they had used in the past. On the first day of their refusal,
they received an oral warning for failing to use the computer and they were instructed by their supervisor that
they should use the computer in future. Sipho and Anwar were convinced that they could not be forced to use the
computer and were determined to pressurise the company into giving them the recognition they demanded. They
knew that the company needed their computer skills, and they believed that if they withheld them, the company
would be forced to concede. They therefore continued with their refusal. The company then gave them written
warnings for failing to obey reasonable instructions, as it hoped this would persuade Sipho and Anwar to resume
using the computer. When they continued with their refusal, they were given final written warnings for
insubordination. On the following day, they had a major altercation with their supervisor when he instructed them
to use the computer. They informed him that they were sick and tired of being messed around by the company
and that the company could do what it liked but they would not use the computers until they were upgraded.
Sipho and Anwar were then summoned to a disciplinary enquiry and dismissed for insubordination after a full
hearing.
, lOMoAR cPSD| 16857960
The workers at the company were incensed at the dismissal of a senior shop steward and were convinced that
the real reason for the dismissal was that the company wanted to get rid of the union. They therefore stopped
work and demanded Sipho and Anwar’s reinstatement. The company informed them that their work stoppage
was unprocedural and illegal and that they would not talk to them until they returned to work. The workers did
not heed management’s request and began singing and marching in the car park. Its non-union workers
approached the company. They demanded safe custody out of the company premises and warned the company
that they expected the company to take firm action against what they called the workers’ “illegal mass action”.
They were frightened and felt that the company was always giving in to the union.
The workers continued with their strike the following day. The company’s lawyers suggested that they resolve
the dispute by going to court for an injunction ordering the striking workers to return to work. The company
gave the workers an ultimatum to return to work. When they did not heed the ultimatum, they were dismissed.
The company’s attorneys advised the company that they were fully entitled to dismiss illegal strikers and that
they would win any action brought by the workers in the Labour Court. The union was anxious not to lose its
membership at the company and it approached the company. It suggested that the strikers be reinstated. The
company refused, and the union then suggested that the case of Sipho and Anwar be taken to an independent
arbitrator for determination.
When the company refused, the union launched a consumer boycott against the company with the support of
various sympathetic, political, and church organisations. Although the strike and the boycott caused the company
significant harm, it felt morally obliged to stand its ground against the union and its supporters because it
believed that their real intention was either to destroy it or to take it over.
The workers, on the other hand, believed that the company was determined to rid itself of the union. They felt
that Sipho and Anwar’s original demand was reasonable, and they felt that they had to fight to the bitter end for
their jobs.
Source: Adapted from Nel, P.S., Kirsten, M., Swanepoel, B.J., Erasmus, B.J. & Jordaan, B. 2016. South African
Employment Relations, theory and practice. 8th edition. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
QUESTION 1
Evaluate the legality of Sipho and Anwar's refusal to use the computers as well as the fairness of their dismissals,
based on the provisions in the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA). In your analysis, consider the definitions
of insubordination and the criteria for fair dismissals outlined in the LRA. What alternative actions might they have
pursued to address their complaints regarding job grading? (15)
Total for Question 1: [15]
QUESTION 1
Evaluate the legality of Sipho and Anwar’s refusal to use the computers
and the fairness of their dismissals; consider the LRA’s definition of
insubordination, criteria for fair dismissal, and alternative actions they
could have taken.
1. Introduction
