Contributors

This week Ivan Israelstam addresses the danger of an approach used by some employers, who have not effectively managed performance and behaviour. To remove "troublesome" employees - who should have been disciplined or performance managed - the employer goes to great lengths to manipulate positions, and to create a redeployment pool, which effectively amounts to a redundancy pool. Ivan demonstrates how the Labour Appeal Court has the power to uncover alternative agenda, and the consequences of such poor management performance. 

This week, Ivan Israelstam explains the legally distinct reasons for dismissal: for misconduct, for poor work performance, and for operational requirements.  These are distinctly different reasons, and each has a distinctly different procedure to achieve a legally compliant dismissal. There are always exceptions in the cases, but employers are well-advised to follow the standard methods for each circumstance. 

Everyone can quote examples of entering a retail store, other service provider, or office, looking for service - only to find an employee filing their nails, or talking on a private call on their the cell phone, or clearly on a social network. Now who is responsible for this behaviour?  Yes, the individual himself or herself, but the key question is where is management?  Why is this employee allowed to behave like this in company time? This week Ivan Israelstam approaches the issue of management responsibility.

This week Ivan Israelstam explains why it is important that an employee should be allowed to cross-examination witnesses giving evidence at a disciplinary hearing. Sometimes a chairperson will interrupt or limit the employee's questions.  What is the implication when this happens?

What is a "transfer as a going concern" and what are the implications for employees who are part of the transfer? This week Ivan Israelstam explains how the courts have developed the answer to these very complex questions over a period of time. 

What rights does an employer have to discipline an employee for misconduct outside the workplace? What will be taken into account when an employee commits an offence - or a related crime - outside the workplace? This week Ivan Israelstam explains what factors will be taken into account by the CCMA. 

This week Ivan Israelstam persuades employers to protect themselves by joining an employer organisation - so that they have protection at the CCMA. Ivan expresses the opinion that labour law provides very little protection for employers and that the protection of employees has been increasing over time. He provides examples from the cases.

 

This week Ivan Israelstam asks the question: why do employers continue to get it wrong?  The requirements are clearly laid out in plain English, but employers don't follow the procedural consultation requirements.  Even though there may be a valid operational requirement, it is still necessary to ensure that the procedures according to the Labour Relations Act are still followed - to ensure a procedurally fair retrenchment.  

Ivan Israelstam

Employers sometimes think that employing a person on a fixed-term contract will save the company any obligations in terms of labour law. Under employment equity legislation and codes, there are already implications for employing people on long term contracts in what are permanent positions. This week Ivan Israelstam explains the implications of a Labour Court decision, which finds the employer did not have a right to terminate a fixed-term contract before the end of the term.  

In the modern workplace, filled with distractions and illusions of grandeur, it can be an overwhelming task to maintain motivation, and drive a workforce to deliver productivity. To achieve this, 21st century managers should focus on two elements; getting people to work, and making work for people.

Ivan Israelstam

Many employers will be able to provide examples of how employees ignore or don't comply with requests or instructions. When does failure to comply with instructions constitute sufficient grounds for dismissal?  This week Ivan Israelstam quotes from actual CCMA cases, where employees have been re-instated. Ivan highlights the challenge employers face - achieving a fair dismissal acceptable to the CCMA.  

Ivan Israelstam

Labour law - sometimes referred to as a minefield or a jungle - intended to indicate the complexity of the field for the unwary and unqualified. This week Ivan Israelstam sets out how to judge whether the person advising you really is knowledgeable and experienced, and what services they should be able to provide to you. 

Ivan Israelstam

This week Ivan Israelstam explains why it is so important for management to be knowledgeable in labour law. The management of discipline is part of management responsibility and should not be seen as a specialist area for the HR or IR people to handle. Therefore training of all management is extremely important.

Ivan Israelstam

Many employers will be able to relate to the situation of being infurirated by employee behaviour. However, as Ivan Israelstam explains this week, it is very dangerous for an employer to react emotionally and overstate the allegation of misconduct - by alleging dereliction of duty. This term has a very specific legal meaning and therefore at the CCMA the employer will have the responsibility for proving that the misconduct was a deliberate and intentional action by the employee.

Before embarking upon large scale retrechments, employers need to have a very clear understanding of what labour law requires. This week Ivan Israelstam explains the definition of large scale retrenchment and describes how the Labour Court has decided on retrenchment procedures. He concludes that everything is not clear and advises employers to seek legal assistance before embarking on large scale retrenchments.

The managerial ladder is often built with rungs that depend on technical expertise. If an employee proves that they have the skills to perform the business tasks required of their position, they are promoted to the next rung.

Labour brokers - or temporary employment services (TES) - provide staff to companies, but sometimes fail to realise that they are also bound by the rquirements of labour law as employer. In addition to the legislation there may also be additional bargaining council determinations, which set conditions such as minimum wage rates. This week Ivan Israelstam explains how the CCMA has decided dismissal arbitrations involving labour brokers.

This week Ivan Israelstam expresses his view that the employer’s right to dismiss has been weakened. He explains how the Sidumo matter proceeded through various courts ultimately ending in a Constitutional Court decision, which provides the standard for employers to adhere to when deciding upon a dismissal sanction.

In dismissal or other disputes, when employers believe that the employee is not telling the truth or misrepresenting the facts related to the case, it is very important that employers take it very seriously and carefully prepare their own case, so that the Commissioner is able to reach the correct conclusion. Ivan Israelstam explains further.

This week Ivan Israelstam provides examples of how under-prepared, or inexperienced and untrained employers go wrong - and the financial an industrial relations implications when dismissed employees are re-instated.

Employers who use consecutive fixed-term contracts for an employee, and then don't issue one for whatever reason - need to understand that the CCMA Commissioners will regard that employee as being permanent. This is just one of the examples that Ivan Israelstam quotes this week to explain why employers should not misuse fixed-term contracts. Using a fixed-term contract for probationary purposes is also not correct. Where the position is permanent; probation should be covered by a probationary clause in a permanent contract. There is also a requirement to provide instruction, guidance and counselling prior to reaching a dismissal decision for poor performance during the probationary period.

Over a long period of time, many employers will be able to recall employees, who have not fitted in well in the organisational culture - despite being qualified for the position. However, sometimes the responsibility for not being able to get on with other employees does not rest with the employee, but elsewhere - and possibly with the manager or boss. This week Ivan Israelstam provides a practical example of the limits of managerial prerogative, and how any apparent incompatibility should be identified and handled. He also explains how this differs from misconduct such as the refusal to follow company rules..

Leadership skills and organisational ability are required by a union organiser as much as a supervisor or manager. Employer development and promotion policies and practices are likely then to identify someone who is a union member for promotion to a managerial or supervisory position. This week Ivan Israelstam quotes from a Labour Court case, which covers the employee rights and how the employer should handle the apparent conflict of interest.

Do not dilly dally in bringing disciplinary charges. This is the advice of Ivan Israelstam, who explains exactly why disciplinary action should be timeous - not overly hasty, but definitely not long overdue. This week, Ivan explains what to take into account and how to achieve this balance.

If an employer assumes that an imprisoned employee has simply dismissed themselves, or absconded, the employer will not be on firm legal ground to dismiss the employee. This week Ivan Israelstam explains how the CCMA and bargaining council commissioners have dealt with such dismissals.

Pages

Subscribe to Contributors