Employers should be aware that allowing senior management to overrule junior management, who are more knowledgeable and experienced in disciplinary procedures may be risky. This week in his second article of the series, Ivan Israelstam explains what double jeopardy is, and how employers who fail to understand double jeopardy, may make very costly mistakes.
This week Ivan Israelstam launches a series of articles dealing with the changes to labour law implemented by the Department of Labour. The articles will also make reference to how case law - that is decisions by the CCMA, bargaining councils and courts affect how the labour laws are to be implemented.
Employers may believe that referring to any dishonest behaviour as "fraud" will help them in achieving a dismissal. However, as Ivan Israelstam explains "fraud" has a very specific meaning, and in order to sustain a dismissal decision at the CCMA, the employer needs to understand what is involved, and how to present the evidence to support this allegation.
As ivan Israelstam demonstrates this week, there are many reasons why spiteful actions arise in workplaces. But when emotions and egos come into play, the results can be both expensive and destructive for the business. To avoid these dangers you may want to read on and follow Ivan's advice.
What makes an employment relationship intolerable, and why is this important anyway? Those are the questions that Ivan Israelstam addresses this week. He explains why it is important that an employer understands what this means, and what other factors to take into account before proceeding with a dismissal decision.
This week Ivan Israelstam explains the differences between a retrenchment (an operational requirements dismissal) and a mutually agreed termination of an employment contract. The procedures to be followed are different and the nature of the document that concludes the ending of the employment contract are significantly different. Mixing up these two types of agreement can be expensive.
In the mid 1990s the old labour legislation was repealed and was replaced by our current Labour Relations Act (LRA) negotiated between government, employers and trade unions. Due to the fact that parties had substantially different agendas they were often unable to agree on a number of important details of law which were therefore omitted from the LRA. Some detail as to the intention of the law is provided in the form of codes of good practice and other gaps may be filled by case law. Ivan Israelstam explains further.
The level of work performance of employees is a crucial factor in the advancement of South Africa’s economy and in the success of each enterprise. This is one reason that the law does allow employers to dismiss employees who fail to perform according to performance standards. However, the same legislation lays down very stringent tests to establish whether dismissal for poor performance is appropriate in each specific instance.
The huge losses resulting from the current spate of strike raise the question of how such strikes can be prevented. Is it possible that private arbitration could reduce the damage of extended strikes? Ivan Israelstam explains how this may be done.
Victimisation is an allegation made by employees sometimes under the Labour Relations Act and sometimes under the Employment Equity Act. Ivan Israelstam explains various acts that are classified as victimisation, but also points out gaps in the laws. He advises employers to proceed with caution and not think that they have a free hand in their behaviour with employees.
Employers may not compromise the privacy of an employee's private emails in terms of the legislation regulating interception of communications. Therefore, Ivan Israelstam advises that employers ensure that they have employees' written acceptance that their emails sent using company facilities may be monitored.
Employers who hold senior positions in multi-national and national organisations may hold an arrogant belief that the CCMA Commissioner will believe their testimony against that of a junior employee. Ivan Israelstam explains why this approach could lead to the company losing the arbitration.
Human resource practitioners will be aware of the saying that one employs for qualifications and dismisses for behaviour. Individuals who have been model employees may suddenly start behaving in uncharacteristic ways, brought on by personal relationship problems, trauma, or forms of physical or mental illness. No matter how frustrating the behaviour may be for the employer Ivan Israelstam explains why it is critical that employers behave correctly.
What are the required notice periods when an employee resigns? What rights does an employer have when an employee simply gives "instant" notice - or fails to work in their notice? How should an employer respond? These are the questions that Ivan Israelstam deals with this week.
It is often very difficult for employers to provide sufficient proof to the CCMA or bargaining council commissioner that the employee is guilty of the misconduct for which he was dismissed. The employer has the full onus (legal responsibility) of proving that the dismissal is fair. Employers often believe that video or camera footage will provide sufficient evidence for a dismissal. This week Ivan Israelstam explains the complexities involved in using this technology in disciplinary hearings.
Newly appointed supervisors and managers do sometimes find difficulty in understanding what is meant by a "fair labour practice". As Ivan Israelstam explains in this article, it is not quite as simple to identify what is unfair as it is to identify what is illegal in criminal law. This article sets out very plainly the questions managers and supervisors should ask themselves to determine whether their actions will be seen as "fair" - or unfair