MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1536826666 · doi:10.17159/obiter.v27i3.14358

SECTION 60 OF THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT 1998: WILL A COMPARATIVE APPROACH SHAKE THIS JOKER OUT OF THE PACK?

2022· article· en· W1536826666 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rochelle Le Roux

Bibliographic record

VenueObiter · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarassmentJurisprudenceSection (typography)Equity (law)Context (archaeology)Meaning (existential)Labour lawLawSociologyLiabilityCommon lawPolitical scienceLaw and economicsBusinessPsychologyHistoryAdvertising

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Section 60 of the Employment Equity Act 1998 provides for the liability of an employer to an employee suffering from discriminatory conduct by another employee. Section 60 also provides two defences that can be raised by the employer in such circumstances. In this article the circumstances under which an employer can be held liable in terms of section 60 are explored. More particularly, the meaning of the requirement that the discriminatory conduct must relate to an employment policy or practice is considered. The possible meaning of harassment in the workplace is also reflected upon with reference to developments and jurisprudence in the context of sexual harassment. The nature and content of the defences available in terms of section 60 are analysed with reference to comparative jurisprudence in Britain, Australia, Canada and the United States of America. In view of this, reservations are expressed about the correctness of the judgment of the Labour Court in SATAWU obo Finca v Old Mutual Life Insurance Company (SA) Limited and Burger.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.014
Scholarly communication0.0120.014
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0140.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObiterSame topicCorporate Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207