Advertisement

disciplinary procedure

This week Ivan Israelstam explains exactly why employers who have disciplinary procedures - and put those disciplinary procedures in the employee's contract - need to make absolutely sure that they follow exactly the procedures that have been set out. The Labour Court will take a dim view of employers who simply make minimal effort to ensure that the procedures are followed.

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. 

Are there different requirements for disciplinary action against a shop steward, and if so - what are the differences? That is the question Ivan Israelstam addresses this week. Essentially not all infractions by a shop steward would amount to gross misconduct. One example is the shop steward's position during negotiations - in that forum the shop steward addresses management as an equal. So using strong terms to reject management's proposal would not be insubordination. Ivan quotes cases to explain the differences between dismissing a shop steward and dismissing an employee.

This week Ivan Israelstam explains why it is important for an employer not only to refer bribery and corruption activities to the SAPS, but also to conduct an internal disciplinary hearing before terminating the services of an employee. 

This week Ivan Israelstam explains the concept of double jeopardy, and why it is important that employers understand what it is, and how to avoid actions that count as double jeopardy.  

When employers include disciplinary policy, procedures and codes in employment contracts, it is especially important that the employer follow their own documented procedures. Failure to follow their own procedures will call into question the status of the dismissal of employees. In this case Ivan Israelstam details how the Labour Court judge analysed the failures of both the employer, and the CCMA arbitrator, who supported the dismissal.

Employers would be unwise to assume that just because an employee already has a final written warning on file, that the employer can simply go ahead and process a dismissal. This week Ivan Isralstam explains the complexities to be taken into account - such as the validity of the final written warning.

Many employers think that by not putting anything in writing they are protecting themselves. On the contrary, as Ivan Israelstam explains this week, they are putting themselves in a very vulnerable position, where they will not be able to protect themselves when a dismissed employee claims that the company did not have any rules and standards, and allege that no procedure was followed in their dismissal.

The service that labour brokers provide is to find and to place workers with a business. But what happens when there is an incident and the business no longer wants to accept the worker who has been placed with them? Ivan Israelstam explains the findings of a case where exactly this scenario occurred.

What are the implications of saying that the disciplinary process does not mean to be a formal process? That is the question addressed this week by Ivan Israelstam. The key point is how will the employer prove that the procedure adopted was fair, and that the employee received a fair hearing if there is no documentary trail?

Pages

Advertisement

Subscribe to disciplinary procedure