Ivan Israelstam

This week Ivan Israelstam explains what these terms of the Labour Relations Act section 213 mean - economic, technological, structural or similar needs of the employer.

When business conditions change, employers may want to change the terms and conditions of employment of the employees. This week Ivan Israelstam explains what employers should not do in these circumstances. 

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?  

Over the last few decades, many companies have transferred parts of a business to another company, which continues to provide a service to the original company. Transfers of the employees takes place under Section 197 of the Labour Relations Act. If the company subsequently decides to cancel that arrangement and appoints another company to provide the service, do all of the employees move over again? Ivan explains the complexities and implications of this question.

Ivan Israelstam provides examples of how employers may be required to make an employee permanent as a result of a "reasonable expectation" that they would be made permanent. Ivan explains how the use of multiple renewals of fixed term contracts by employers will fall foul of the CCMA arbitrators. 

Ivan Israelstam expresses the opinion that labour laws are restrictive and that although the intention is to help employees, the effect is to increase unemployment.

When should the chairperson of an internal disciplinary hearing consider allowing a lawyer to represent the employee facing the disciplinary hearing? Ivan Israelstam explains how the courts have considered this question, and what employers should take into account in order to respond to such requests. 

This week Ivan Israelstam explains why it is important for management to understand the difference between mitigating circumstances and extenuating circumstances. He argues that there is a difference - and explains how this understanding relates to provocation and affects decisions to dismiss.

This week Ivan Israelstam answers the question on whether an allegation of assault will automatically always lead to a decision to dismiss. Ivan looks at how the authorities have dealt with the question, and concludes that the specific circumstances of each case need to be carefully considered before reaching a decision.

You can be an employee before you start work! This week Ivan Israelstam explains that there gap in employent law. That is because neither the Labour Relations Act, nor Basic Conditions of Employment Act, nor the Employment Equity Act adequately cover this question. Ivan advises on the limitations in finding a way forward by relying upon the law of contract. So, Ivan explains how have the Labour Court, and Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) have responded - and the Labour Appeal Court has stepped in.

Pages

Subscribe to Ivan Israelstam