Sexual Harassment and Vicarious Liability: A Warning to Political Parties

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Date: 27 May 2019
• Pages: 143-169
• Published date: 27 May 2019
• Author: Barbara E Loots
• Citation: (2008) 19 Stell LR 143

143

SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND VICARIOUS

LIABILITY: A WARNING TO POLITICAL

PARTIES

Barbara E Loots

LLB LLM

Part-time Lecturer, Department of Public Law, University of Stellenbosch*

“Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it.”1

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”2

1  Introduction

The allegations that the former ANC chief whip, Mbulelo Goniwe, sexually

harassed an administrative assistant working i n that party’s pa rliamentary

ofce has brought to light the immense power the special relationship between

a political part y and its chief whip bestows upon the latt er.3 Of specic inter-

est is the consideration that, under certain circu mstances, the nature of th is

relationship can result in vica rious liability for t he political party if its chief

whip’s abuse of political power results in harm to a thi rd party.

This article investigates whether a broader applicat ion of the doctr ine of

vicarious liability can accommodate the special relationship which exists

between a political party and its chief whip.4 Such a n investigation, although

* I would li ke to thank Ms Jeanni ne Pieber, Dr Gerhard Kemp, Dr Geo Qui not, Dr Kar in Calitz and Prof

Sandy Liebenbe rg for comments and d iscussions. Rema ining shortc omings are my own.

1 Quotation f rom a speech held by William Pitt , Earl of Chatha m and former Br itish Prime Mi nister, on 9

January 1770; see Bar tlett Familiar Q uotations 14 ed (1968) 426.

2 Quotation f rom a letter writ ten by Lord Acton to Bishop M andell Creighton on 5 Apr il 1887; see Bartlett

Familiar Quota tions 750.

3 The ANC Nat ional Disciplin ary Commit tee, chaired by Kader Asma l, held a discipli nary hear ing on 14

December 2 006 to conside r the thre e charges broug ht against G oniwe of which th e first wa s the “abuse

of office in the ANC and the ANC Ca ucus in t he National Assembly to obtain se xual and other undu e

advantages from me mbers or o thers”. The other charge s dealt wi th his v iolation of t he expected moral

integrit y of pa rty memb ers and public re presentatives, as well as th e fact that his actions “provoke[d]

serious divisions and a break-dow n of unity in the organis ation”. Afte r conside ration, the com mittee

found Goniwe guilt y of the first two charges and exp elled him from the ANC (see “Statem ent of the ANC

National Disc iplinary Com mittee in the Case of Mbulelo Gon iwe” (14 December 2006) ht tp://www.anc.

org.za/ancdo cs/pr/2006/ (acc essed 17 January 2007 ).

4 The position of a chi ef whip of a political par ty in Parliament i s English in origi n. The political ter m was

borrowed from fox hunting’s “whipper-in of foxhound s” and has be en descr ibed by Gladstone as “an

undefine d offshoot of t he constit ution”. In the t raditional sense a chief whip was t he unofficial chief of

the sta ff to t he leader of a polit ical part y and c oncerned with matt ers of pa rty man agement, wi th “the

order of business” as main resp onsibility. Glad stone explai ned that “[i]n short, t he Chief whi p held the

position of general mana ger of the pa rty … [b]ut he was resp onsible to the chief, and not to the cabi net

or (in Opposition) to any c onclave of ex-ca binet membe rs or ot her leadi ng men” (“ The Chief Whip in

the Brit ish Parliament ” 1927 APSR 519-521). South A frica’s parliament ary syste m of governme nt, with

remnants of its En glish herit age, consider s it the responsibilit y of the c hief whip of a political party in

Parliament “to manage other whips w ithin the pa rty to en sure that i ts members ma intain dis cipline and

good cond uct and specifically seeks t o ensure that pa rty memb ers speak with on e voice on matters of

policy”. Therefore it is a chief whip’s principal dut y to realise party unit y. See “Annual Repor t on the City

of Johannes burg: 2002/03” htt p://www.joburg-arch ive.co.za/city _vision/an nualrepor t2002-03 (accessed

28 November 2006). It must be kept in mind that the chief whip is also a member of the polit ical party. His

or her associat ion with the politic al party as a mem ber is voluntary.

(2008) 19 Stell LR 143

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

144 STELL LR 2008 1

controversial, is warranted in the light of the constitutional values and accom-

panying rights of human dignity, equality and freedom,5 which are violated by

acts of sexual harassment. As Grogan6 ind icated: “harassment cases are not

like the run of the m ill vicarious liability cases.”

The article rst provides a brief introduction to the doctrine of vicarious liabil-

ity and an overview of the magnitude of the problem of sexual harassment in

our society. This sets the scene for a discussion of the problematic common law

requirement of the doctrine of vicarious liability that a master-servant relationship

must be established. Thereafter an investigation follows into the common law

requirement that the wrongful acts for which the master can be held vicariously

liable must be committed within the scope of the servant’s employment. Taking

into consideration the review of the common law requirements and its applica-

tion to the special relationship under consideration, it will nally be considered

whether the exible common law nature of the doctrine of vicarious liability is in

harmony with the spirit of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.7

The article does not mainly focus on South African jurisprudence, since it has

recently been noted that previous South African decisions regarding vicarious

liability rarely prove helpful in untried cases. This is because “many decisions …

are based on stereotyped expressions and generalisations of limited value from

which no logical approach can be distilled”.8 The focus mainly falls on vicarious

liability trends in common law countries.9 As Calitz10 pointed out, this is espe-

cially necessary since traditional South African vicarious liability cases

“were in the past reluctant to hold an employee vicariously liable for acts done outside the employee’s

authority and not in furtherance of the employer’s business … [and therefore] provide no guide-

5 These values are also grant ed enforceable power by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa , 1996

through s 10 (right to human dignity), s 9 (right to equality) and s 12 (freedom and security of the person).

6 “Vicarious H arassment: Employer s Become Reluctant I nsurers” 200 4 Employment Law 3 6.

7 1996.

8 Calitz “Vicarious Liabilit y of Employers: Reconsideri ng Risk as the Basis for Liabilit y” 2005 TSAR

215 225. In Grobler v Na spers Bpk 2004 5 BLLR 455 (C) 506 Nel J noted: “Soos alg emeen bekend …

wanneer ’n nuwe situa sie hom voordoen het verwy sings na vorige beslissin gs om ’n grensgeval probleem

op te los, selde veel waarde . In die veld van middellike aanspreek likheid w as daar menige be slissings

wat voor gegee het om te steun op geykt e uitdr ukkings en ver algemenings maar waaruit geen log iese

benaderi ng gedistillee r kan word nie. Steun op o uerige beslissin gs is ook problematies.”

9 In Grobler v Naspers Bpk 2004 5 BLLR 455 (C) 506-508 Nel J explai ned: “’n Benad ering dat die

middellike aanspr eeklikheid van ’n werkgewer getoets moet word aan ’n onbuigsame regsreël negeer

ontwik kelings gedur ende die la aste paar dekades i n die sogena amde ‘common law’ jurisd iksies, nl die

VSA, Ka nada, die Verenigde Konink ryk, Au stralië en Nieu-Se eland. O ntwikkelin gs van die ‘reël’ in

daardie jurisd iksies is nat uurlik van b elang v ir Suid -Afrika omdat dit d eur on s reg vanuit Engeland

oorgeneem is … [ D]ie verander ings in die beskou ings oor die erns en omva ng van s eksuele teist ering

[het] ’n ommekeer te weeg gebring in d ie benad ering t ot die ‘reël’ in die ‘com mon law’ jurisdik sies.

Die standa ard toetse vi r middellike a anspreekli kheid en die re des vir die be staan daar van is weer onde r

oë gene em, en daar is tot die gevolgtrek king gekom dat d ie gewone t oepassing van die ‘reël’ nie tred

gehou het met die er nstige vergry pe van seksuele teis tering in die mode rne samelewing n ie. Dit het gelei

tot besl issings da t werkgewers onder se kere omsta ndighede m iddellik a anspreekli k is vi r die s eksuele

teisteri ng van hul werknemers deur toe sighouers (‘superviso rs’) en vir die seksuele teisterin g van kinders

deur pe rsone wat i n beheer va n hulle aa ngestel is.” Nel J (525) went fu rther to summari se the fi ndings

of the c ommon law co urts: the scope of t he rule h as changed through t he ages to take into account t he

changing so cial and economic ci rcumstances a nd should continue t o do so; the rule has bee n adjusted by

decisions of judges based on considera tions of fai rness and not by legal pr inciple; when a new problem

such as sexu al harassme nt presents itsel f, the natur e of the specif ic relationship in compariso n to others

should be a nalysed. The reafter it mu st be decided whether, in t he light of the relevant chara cteristics of

the relations hip, the law find s the unlawfu l acts sufficie ntly related to and fa lling within t he risk created

or escalated by t he relationship to f ind vicariou s liability to be pr esent. See also Cal itz 2005 TSAR 225.

10 2005 TSAR 225.

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd