Contributors

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.

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 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.

When does South African labour law apply? This week Ivan gives us a number of examples where foreign firms thought - incorrectly - that they could do as they please with their employees. No - not so. Ivan demonstrates through a number of cases where these employers made some very serious - and extremely expensive - mistakes. Our courts found that they did have jurisdiction and the defaulting employers paid the employees' costs - in addition to all the other costs.

Employers are sometimes disappointed and angry that a CCMA arbitration award has gone against them. This week Ivan Israelstam explains why this sometimes occurs, and what the standards are that CCMA Commissioners must meet. Ivan explains how this helps an employer deciding whether they should challenge the award.

When faced with challenges raised by employees, employers may be tempted to opt for a retrenchment exercise to remove employees who may seem to be too challenging of management authority. This week Ivan Israelstam explains what may genuinely be regarded as an operational requirement and why employers should be careful not to concoct reasons that will not stand up in court.

The world of work is changing rapidly. As a result of technological advances, globalisation, and competition employers need to make changes to their working conditions. This week Ivan Israelstam deals with how an employer should react when employees are reluctant to change their working arrangements, such as shift patterns. How should the employer respond?

A second generation transfer arises when a company first outsources a part of the company to a service provider company, who takes over the employees related to that company department or service. The contract is for a fixed period and the orginal company then re-tenders to a different service provider company to take over the provision of the services. The question arises: does the second service provider company have to take over those employees who were part of the original transfer? The answer has not been clear, and the courts have differed on the correct interpretation of s197 of the Labour Relations Act. This week Ivan Israelstam explains these different interpretations.

Activities that may be classified as misconduct are sometimes provoked, causing raised emotions, which sometimes result in retaliatory action. However, whatever happens a senior manager needs to remain in control of their emotions at all times, and to ensure that only disciplinary actions consistent with the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal (Schedule 8) are taken against employees. This week Ivan Israelstam explains why resorting to biting a junior employee is inadvisable.

Employers may feel that an assault does always merit dismissal of the offender's employment. This week Ivan Israelstam explains why this may not always be the case, and why the CCMA arbitrator may re-instate a dismissed employee. He explains the procedural and substantive issues that need to be considered.

Benefits paid to employees may represent an increasing cost to employers, but it is not possible for an employer to simply remove benefits that an employee previously enjoyed without challenge. Such challenges will be heard at the CCMA. This week Ivan Israelstam explains just how much a successful challenge may cost an employer who loses their case.

Employers may not realise that many of their decisions to restructure or reorganise reporting relationships within the company many in fact represent a demotion for an employee. Changes that affect an employee adversely may be defined as a demotion. This week Ivan Israelstam explains what may constitute a demotion, and how the CCMA will interpret the preocedural requirements related to demotions..

Management, executives, and company boards do not always agree on an appropriate method to deal with senior employees when a company suffers a financial downturn. This week Ivan Israelstam points out how important it is to investigate the facts before deciding on the correct path to follow. A company should not agree on a retrenchment and then try also to dismiss for some form of misconduct or lack of performance.

Employers may retrench employees for reasons of economic, structural, or technological reasons, in terms of the Labour Relations Act and the Code of Good Practice on Operational Requirements Dismissals. The Labour Appeal Court has stated that retrenchment has a serious impact upon employees. Decisions on retrenchment therefore have to be made based upon sound objective criteria, which emerge after consultation with the parties concerned, and are backed by evidence. Ivan Israelstam sets out the issues determined by the courts in two cases.