MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1550168670 · doi:10.17159/obiter.v32i3.12241

THE JURISDICTION OF THE LABOUR COURT IN INTERNATIONAL EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS IN RESPECT OF WORKPLACES OUTSIDE SOUTH AFRICA

2021· article· en· W1550168670 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karin Calitz

Bibliographic record

VenueObiter · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Governance and Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdjudicationJurisdictionLawAppealLabour lawPolitical scienceConflict of lawsInternational lawPleading

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Does the Labour Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between a South African employer and a South African employee where the employee performs work for the employer in a foreign country? This is a question that should be considered, as one effect of globalisation is that South African employees are increasingly working for South African employers outside of South Africa. The difficulty is that the answer to the question is to be found in the area of private international law (conflict of laws) and that very few labour disputes involving private international law have been decided by South African courts. In 2002 in Kleynhans v Parmalat SA (Pty) Ltd (2002 9 BLLR 879 (LC)) and in 2005 in Parry v Astral Operations Ltd (supra) the Labour Court held that it did have the necessary jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes where the workplace was outside South Africa, provided that certain requirements are met. However, in Astral Operations Limited v Parry (2008 29 ILJ 2668 (LAC)) the Labour Appeal Court overturned the decision of the Labour Court. Zondo J reasoned that both the Labour Relations Act and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act do not have extra-territorial application in terms of the presumption against extra-territoriality and that, as the workplace was outside South Africa, the Labour Court, which was created by these two acts, did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. In this article I shall briefly discuss the four-stage private international law process of adjudication that should be followed in disputes where international employment contracts are involved. After that I shall discuss the judgments in Parry v Astral in the Labour Court and the decision in AstralOperations v Parry in the Labour Appeal Court as well as the effect of this decision. This will be followed by a discussion of the position regarding the jurisdiction of courts and tribunals adjudicating international employment disputes in the European Union, the United Kingdom and in Ontario, Canada. In conclusion, the judgment of the Labour Appeal Court in Astral Operations v Parry will be examined in the light of the constitutional right to fair labour practices and the necessity for employees to be protected in a globalised employment context in which multi-national enterprises operate across borders.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.022
Scholarly communication0.0220.012
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0120.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObiterSame topicCorporate Governance and LawFrench-language works237,207