Ivan Israelstam

Sometimes employees do come in to work and declare that they are resigning with immediate effect. This can be for a number of personal reasons, irritation with management, and so on.  This week Ivan Israelstam explains the potential implications for employers when this occurs.

South Africa’s labour legislation changes periodically and case law decisions of ten have the effect of changing the law. As management at all levels make daily decisions affecting the myriad of employee rights, all managers need to be able to take the complex, increasing and constantly changing labour laws into account when making their decisions.

When employers are faced with financial challenges, and contemplate retrenching employees, it is critical for the employer to first consult on alternatives to avoid retrenchment. Ivan Israelstam explains what is required, and how employers should consider alternatives. If the employee makes proposals, which the employer does not accept, it is necessary that the employer provides a response on why the alternative proposed is not a viable option.    

Sections 189 and 189A of the Labour Relations Act (LRA) make retrenchment exercises very difficult and costly for employers.

Not only employers, but also union officials and employees sometimes wonder what the words in the employment legislation mean. This is also seen in differences between the Labour Court and the CCMA and bargaining council arbitrators. This week Ivan provides examples of how the different acts aren't always clear.  

All employers need to be aware of RICA. This week Ivan Israelstam explains what RICA is, and what the implications are for employers who want to intercept an employee's emails, or listen to phone calls. What are the implications if an employer simply goes ahead without understanding the legal constraints?

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.

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.

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. 

This week Ivan Israelstam explains the background to the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) Guidelines. What is the purpose of publication of the guidelines, and what are some of the important items included in the document? The guidelines are intended to ensure greater consistency in Commissioners' arbitration decisions, and meet the Constitutional right of employers to fair administrative action. In conclusion, Ivan reinforces that the onus to prove a fair dismissal rests with the employer.  

South Africa’s labour legislation was largely conceived by our country’s trade unions. As a result the statutes heavily protect employees and, in particular, protects the jobs of workers.

Despite South Africa’s employment equity legislation, the biases and discrimination that characterised the ‘old South Africa’ still exists in the hearts and minds of many people.