The historical background of the term human resource in the last 80 years of the twentieth century, both the scientific management and the human relation approach have appeared and declined." Provide a comprehensive discussion on the emergence of these approaches including the critics that have been associated with these approaches.

SECTION C:

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT: RETRENCHMENTS VS AUTOMATICALLY UNFAIR DISMISSALS

In the months leading up to April 2014, Aveng faced harsh economic conditions and needed to restructure to survive and avoid the wholesale loss of jobs of its entire workforce. It proposed to remedy this by restructuring which entailed, inter alia, the proposed redundancy of certain roles,

On 15 May 2014, Aveng initiated the consultation process by issuing the section 189(3) letter to the required consulting parties and requested facilitation of the process by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). In the letter, Aveng indicated that about 400 jobs might be affected, but that it hoped that employees would agree to work in the redesigned positions to avoid the necessity of forced retrenchments.

On or about 29 August 2014, a consultation meeting was held, at which employees were invited to apply for voluntary severance packages (VSPS) or early retirement. During consultations, NUMSA proposed a five-grade structure as an alternative to the redesigning of the job descriptions. At that time, Aveng had a 13-grade structure in place. NUMSA's understanding was that the five-grade structure would allow for a redesigning of the job descriptions without interfering with Aveng's organisational structure and reduce costs beyond those provided for in a collective agreement. Following further consultations, employees who opted for VSPs were given notice of termination of employment which took effect on 10 October 2014.

In October 2014, NUMSA and Aveng concluded an interim agreement in terms of which employees agreed to work in accordance with Aveng's redesigned job descriptions until the five-grade structure was further explored, which was contemplated to only be in March 2015.

The employees worked in the re-designed jobs for a period of six months. Then, on 13 February 2015, NUMSA reneged on the interim agreement and sent an email to Aveng informing it that its members would no longer perform the redesigned jobs. According to NUMSA, this was because Aveng had not yet negotiated the five-grade structure. It became clear to Aveng that NUMSA had no desire to engage in a meaningful consensus-seeking consultation process to resolve the five-grade structure issue, but rather sought to use the consultations to demand wage increases. Aveng thus addressed a letter to NUMSA on 30 March 2015 informing it, that after considering its proposals, it was unable to accommodate its demands any further and could not increase its costs.

On 31 March 2015, the parties met and Aveng refused to withdraw its letter dated 30 March 2015. The parties met again on 16 April 2015 where NUMSA expressed its confusion over Aveng's letter. NUMSA asserted that it was led to believe that the forced retrenchments had ended following the termination of the contracts of employees who had accepted the VSPS and those who were on limited-duration contracts.

The parties were unable to resolve their differences and, on 17 April 2015, Aveng addressed a letter to NUMSA similar to that of 30 March 2015 in which NUMSA was informed that the consultation process had been exhausted and that Aveng would continue to implement its new redesigned job descriptions structure to address its operational requirements, as the jobs that existed prior to the consultations had now become redundant. As employees of NUMSA had been performing the redesigned jobs, Aveng offered them an opportunity to remain in those jobs, but 'should they reject it, they [would] unfortunately be retrenched'.

Aveng's offer was accepted by 71 employees, while approximately 733 employees

rejected the offer. They were retrenched. NUMSA referred a dispute to the Bargaining Council and after the dispute remained unresolved, it approached the Labour Court.

In considering NUMSA's claim, the Labour Court held that NUMSA had to produce credible evidence to show that there was a demand followed by a refusal to accept such a demand that led to an automatically unfair dismissal in terms of section 187(1) (c).

NUMSA failed to provide such evidence. The Labour Court accordingly held that the dismissal of the employees was not automatically unfair. Source: https://bowmanslaw.com/insights/employment/constitutional-court- retrenchments-vs-automatically-unfair-dismissals/

QUESTION:  (25 MARKS)

According to the Labour Court, the dismissal of employees at the Aveng's cannot be considered as automatically unfair. Evaluate the conclusion provided by the Labour Court and critically discuss a list of dismissals that are considered as automatically unfair according to Section 187 of the LRA. Further indica procedural requirement of substantive faimess of dismissal based on operational requirements.

QUESTION: (25 MARKS)

Section 188 of the LRA sets out basic rules for all dismissals that are not automatically unfair. Provide Aveng's with a detailed guideline on the basic principles of a fair dismissal, namely substantive and procedural fairness.