Some time ago I was asked by an employer to assist with preparing for a Labour Court review case. The employer had dismissed the employee for theft but the CCMA had forced the employer to reinstate him.

An employer may believe that the easiest way to solve the problem of hostility between employees is to simply dismiss the employees involved. This week Ivan Israelstam explains how this approach may backfire. 

This week Ivan Israelstam explains how a CCMA Arbitrator dealt with a dismissal where an employer mistakenly thought that an employee could "dismiss themselves" - and exactly what the mistake cost the employer. The employee "self-dismissal" was found to be both procedurally and substantively unfair.

Employers sometimes become emotional about an employee, and will manipulate circumstances to achieve a dismissal. One of the ways of doing this is to put further allegations against an employee, when the matter has previously been decided. Ivan Israemstam quotes a number of cases to illustrate the point of when re-doing hearings is justifiable - and how employers may lose if they manipulate the circumstances.

The Labour Relations Act of 1995 (LRA) makes it very easy for employees to challenge alleged unfair dismissals and other unfair practices at private or statutory dispute resolution forums. Such disputes may, by agreement, be dealt with via private (non-statutory) dispute resolution forums such as AMSA, AFSA, Tokiso and others.

Item 4(1) of the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal (the Code) attached to the Labour Relations Act (LRA) states, in effect, that the employer should conduct an investigation and allow the employee to state a case in response to disciplinary allegations as part of the requirements for rendering dismissals procedurally fair. Countless case law decisions have upheld this requirement.

South African labour law requires all discipline to be corrective rather than punitive. When an employer disciplines an employee twice for the very same incident of misconduct, the CCMA is likely to see this as punitive.

Employees do not ordinarily have an automatic entitlement to a pay increase or to advancement up the corporate ladder. However, the Labour Relations Act (LRA) does allow employees who have been passed over for promotion to lodge an unfair labour practice dispute at the relevant bargaining council.

We too often hear the shout from business owners and managers: “Get rid of him now; we’ll worry about the legal costs later!” Little do they realise that ‘the costs’ they are shouting about could be immense.

South African employers often lose at CCMA and bargaining councils in cases relating to fixed-term contracts. A key reason for this is that employers do not understand the legal purpose of fixed-term contracts and the circumstances under which they are safe to implement or terminate.

Employees who lodge grievances OR CCMA disputes are too often victimized for exercising their rights. Such victimization often takes the form of dismissals for incompatibility.

As Ivan Israelstam explains this week, employers may sometimes decide to "get rid of" an employer for reasons of age. However, if the decision does not follow an established, documented, fair, and legal policy and practice, the action could prove not only - very expensive for the employer, but also damaging to the company reputation. 

This week Ivan Israelstam answers these questions: What is a Con-Arb, and how does it differ from conciliation and arbitration? What the implications if an employer receives a notification for a Con-Arb at the CCMA? How should an employer respond to a notice of Con-Arb? Can an employer object to a Con-Arb?  

Using case examples, employers receive guidance on how to handle recruitment and promotion decisions when their business is suffering from financial constraints.

It's always encouraged to employ staff on a permanent contract. But are there any dangers for employers if they choose to use limited duration contracts? Let's find out.

In common law employers and employees have the obligation to treat each other fairly and within the law. What does that mean? This week Ivan Israelstam explains very clearly what the obligations are for both employers and employees.

This week Ivan Israelstam explains the responsibities of larger employer. The bigger the employer, the more that is required before dismissing a sick employee. The case against Standard Bank illustrates how the courts will consider the responsibilities of the larger employers. This is especially a concern where the employee has long service and previously been a good employee. 

Ivan Israelstam explains potential forms of disruption and indiscipline at the workplace - what he refers to as workplace rebellions. The article goes on to consider when dismissal is a fair response by the employer, quoting cases to show how the CCMA will respond to allegations of unfair dismissal. 

In order to optomise the corrective effect of discipline it needs to be implemented as swiftly as possible. This does not mean that the disciplinary process must be carried out hastily. It does mean that, psychologically and legally, unnecessary delays must be avoided.

Dismissing employees who have been arrested can be dangerous.It seems obvious to employers that, if an employee is arrested by the police he has ‘dismissed himself’.