The South African Constitution and the Employment Equity Act are very clear on the grounds that may give rise to unfair discrimination. Not all discrimination is unfair. Employers constantly make choices, for example: on who to appoint, who to promote, who qualifies for a company car, and many similar decisions. It is the fairness and objective grounds upon which the decisions are based that matters. Ivan Israelstam explains further what is required of an employer.
The media often features stories of bribery and corruption. Employers often simply assume - or hope - that these activities happen elsewhere. However, employers would be well served to follow Ivan Israelstam's guidance on what constitutes these activities - how they are defined, and how they should be managed professionally.
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 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.
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.
While retrenchments may be considered necessary for a company, it is critical that employers understand the rights of employees in these circumstances, and the appropriate procedures to adopt to ensure that these rights are protected. Ivan Israelstam explains the three factors at the very heart of protecting the rights of employees.
Not all discrimination is unfair. Choosing one employee from a group of applicants is making a discriminating choice between the applicants. As long as there is a valid reason for the choice, for example: in line with an employment equity plan, or on objective qualification requirements, the choice will not be unfair. However, if the decision is not made upon objective grounds, and a court makes a finding of unfair discrimination against your company, this can potentially have serious implications. Ivan Israelstam explains how this may happen and the financial consequences of such a finding.
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