MRL3702 Assignment 1

Preview (2 of 4 Pages)

100%

Purchase to unlock

Loading page image...

SM: 64634639AN: 755308DD: 27 March 2025Phumzile RachelMadonselaMRL3702 ASSIGNMENT1In the scenario given above: Quantum Foods (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner H Jacobs N.O. andOthers (,IAS5/2.022.) [2023] 7.ALAC 27; [?.0?.4] 1 BI I R 32 (T AC); (2024) 45 ILJ 71(LAC) (18 October 202BThe facts are as follows :

Loading page image...

Every employee at Quantum Food, including union members, signed employment contractsthat stipulated they would be eligible for an annual bonus equal to one month's base pay,which is determined from January to December and paid in December of each year.Pro ratabonuses will be given to employees who join the company during the course of a year.Theworker may also choose to get their bonus each month.Beginning in April 2019, Quantum Foods redesigned payslips to include the monthly pro ratabonus in the amount of R266.35, as a deferred payment, in addition to a cash payment of R3462.55. In the past, the bonus would only appear on the payslip when it was disbursed inDecember.However, the opposing parties contend that the bonus that Quantum Foods iscontractually required to pay its employees does not fall under that description.It lacks the"gratuitous" quality and is based on a covenantal obligation rather than the giver'spreference or discretionary generosity.Quantum Foods fded an appeal against the ruling.It is evident that none of the exceptions listed in subsections 5 (1)(a), (b), or (c) apply to theprovident fund payments made by Quantum Foods on behalf of its workers.As a result,they have to be taken into account when determining the employees' hourly wage.It isgenerally knowledge that Quantum Foods' employee wages would adhere to Act regulationsif the payments were included in workers' hourly rates.As a result, the appeal must besuccessful.The Issue(s) in dispute in the case are as follows:The legal issue would be weather or not the respondents (COMMISSIONER H JACOBS N.O,COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION, and GENERAL WORKERSUNION OF SOUTH AFRICA obo MEMBERS) had legal grounding to dispute Quantum foods'contractual obligations to pay their employees a bonus remuneration.The court's decision reads as follows:The appeal succeeds with no order as to costs. The order of the court a quo is set aside andreplaced with the following:□"The Employer's incorporation of the contractual bonus and the Employer'sprovident fund contributions in the calculation of its wage is in compliance with theprovisions of the National Minimum Wage Act, 9 of 2018."Legal opinion:This response is provided for academic purposes only and should not be considered asprofessional legal advice.

Preview Mode

This document has 4 pages. Sign in to access the full document!

Report

Study Now!

Document Details

Related Documents

Commercial Law Assignment 1-1

Quiz-No-2-Labor-ED

BLAW 202 Sample Questions Spring 2025

Employment Law Duties and Misconduct under the Lab

Obligations and Contracts

Contract and Consumer Protection Law

Whistle blowing and Sarbanes-Oxley

Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002

Legal and Ethical Responsibilities in Risk Management and Museum Practices

Contract Law: Offer, Acceptance, and Consideration � Case Analysis Assignment

Company

Explore

Study Tools