Public sector employees and their right to just administrative action

Prior to the enactment of the Constitution, common law notions such as the audi alteram partem rule, the nemo iudex in sua causa rule and the doctrine of legitimate expectation were extended to protect public-sector employees against unlawful decisions taken against them by their employers. Courts noted the unique relationship between public-sector employees and their employers and that administrative law remedies could be extended to those employees. The enactment of the Constitution brought about two distinct sections in the Bill of Rights which provided for the right to fair labour practices (section 23) and the right to “lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair” administrative action (section 33) respectively. Legislation such as the LRA, BCEA and EEA has been enacted to give effect to section 23 of the Constitution, while the PAJA has been enacted to give effect to section 33. Whether public-sector employees retain their right to seek administrative law remedies against their employers has been the subject of debate for some time. On the one hand it is argued that there should be no problem with there being more than one right affected in a given case and there being more than one legal remedy available to a litigant who finds themselves in such a scenario. On the other hand, it is argued that certain perils, such as forum shopping and dual systems of law will arise if public-sector employees could simply choose either legal remedy. In Fredericks v MEC for Education and Training, Eastern Cape 2002 (2) BCLR 113 (CC) the Constitutional Court held that the applicants could claim relief in terms of sections 9 and 33 of the Constitution as they had specifically based their claims on the rights which they enjoyed in terms of those sections. The court therefore held that the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter. X In Chirwa v Transnet Limited 2008 (3) BCLR 251 (CC) the applicant approached the High Court on the basis that her constitutional right to just administrative action as contemplated by the PAJA was violated as a result of her dismissal. The majority decision of the Constitutional Court held that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter. The applicant’s claim was based on an unfair dismissal dispute for alleged poor work performance. The Constitutional Court therefore held that the applicant should have exhausted the procedures and remedies specifically provided for in the LRA in the case of such a labour dispute. In order to bring clarity to the position of public-sector employees the Constitutional Court in the matter of Gcaba v Minister of Safety and Security [2009] 12 BLLR 1145 (CC) provided an explanation of why the failure of the state as employer to appoint a candidate to a certain position is quintessentially a labour issue and therefore not administrative action. It followed that the High Court indeed lacked jurisdiction as the dispute was primarily a labour matter, cognisable by the Labour Court. The Gcaba judgment raises a number of interesting legal challenges, such as whether the Constitutional Court has overruled its own judgment in the Fredericks case and to what extent administrative law remedies are still open to public-sector employees. The treatise will discuss the complex constitutional framework which is at play when labour law and administrative law overlap. With a critical analysis of the Gcaba judgment and the principles which it sets, this treatise will discuss the administrative law rights available to public-sector employees