Advertisement

Ivan Israelstam

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.

During 2014/15, and again in 2018, there have been a number of changes made to the legislation affecting the obligations of employers and the rights of employees, and responsibilities of commissioners presiding over misconduct hearings.  This week Ivan Israelstam points out that employers are failing to defend their decisions at the CCMA. A number of important changes are listed and Ivan will be covering these over the coming weeks.

This week Ivan Israelstam answers the question: what is workplace fraud? Then he goes explain what employers need to be able to prove to sustain a case, when there is a dismissal dispute lodged at the CCMA.  

The Labour Relations Act (LRA) sets out the rights of an employee in disciplinary matters - giving effect to individual Constitutional rights. In disputes, the employer needs to be able to prove that all of the rights as set out in the LRA, were adhered to. This week Ivan Israelstam explains how an employer would provde their compliance - and the implications for employer procedures. 

It is legally risky for employers to fire an employee for using alcohol or drugs. This is because, where the employee is addicted, he/she is legally classified as being ill and is protected by law.

 

 

Many organisations experience hostility between employees for a number of reasons: favouritism, nepotism, affairs, jealousy over promotions, power struggles, sexist, racist, or bigoted behaviour - are just some of the situations. An employer may believe that the easist way to solve the problem is simply to dismiss the employees involved. This week Ivan Israelstam explains how this approach may backfire. 

This week Ivan provides examples from decided cases of what would not be sufficient to justify dismissal, or make the continued employment relationship intolerable. This is compared with how the Labour Appeal Court has approached allegations of racism, or racist language as:  “an anathema to sound industrial relations and a severe and degrading attack on the dignity of the employees in question”. 

There are a number of reasons why an employer might find a mutually agreed termination more time effective or efficient than other disciplinary procedures.  However, the employer should be very careful not to confuse a retrenchment situation - with very specific procedural requirements - and a genuine mutually agreed termination of the employment relationship. Importantly, such an end of the contract is not legally classed as a dismissal. Ivan Israelstam explains.

This week, Ivan Israelstam uses examples of cases from the CCMA, the Labour Court and the Labour Appeal Court, to explain how decisions can be overturned from one court to the other. Ivan explains why it is important for employers to have an understanding of the pattern of decisions, to understand what is clearly decided, and what is still uncertain - in order to be able to identify what is relevant to their own cases. 

What is a conflict of interest, and may an employer dismiss an employee if there is a conflict of interest? This week Ivan Israelstam explains exactly what is required before a dismissal for conflict of interest will be sustainable at the CCMA. 

Pages

Advertisement

Subscribe to Ivan Israelstam