Advertisement

dismissal

A disruptive employee can influence company performance, reduce productivity, and upset fellow employees to the extent that they may leave. It is important for employers not to ignore an incompatibiiy problem, and before dismissing an employee - ensure that evidence has been obtained to confirm that the employee is the source of the incompatibility. Ivan Israelstam quotes a number of cases that illustrate how employers have gone wrong in the past. 

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. 

Employers do sometimes find it difficult to prove at CCMA hearings the allegations they make against employees, who have been dismissed. One of the most common forms of evidence used in modern workplaces is camera videotape evidence.  However, this is not without problems. This week Ivan Israelstam quotes cases where the camera videotape type evidence has been challenged.  

This week Ivan Israelstam gives examples of fair discrimination.  Then explains how one employer was able to successfully defend against an allegation of unfair discrimination, and another employer could not defend against a dismissal that was found to be an automatically unfair dismissal. 

The sale of a business - or part of a business - may take place when a company is in financial difficulty, and wanting to restructure to avoid going into liquidation.  The new owner may want to reduce the staff complement - but the Labour Relations Act makes any retrenchment as a result of a transfer of a going concern an unfair dismissal. Who is responsible - the old or new employer? Ivan Israelstam explains further.

Employers may be relieved when an employee confesses to some misdemeanour, and assume that a dismissal will then automatically be justified.  This week Ivan Isrealstam explains why this is not so. There are a number of reasons why an employer cannot simply go ahead and dismiss the employee. 

This week Ivan Israelstam provides examples from the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitrator and the Labour Court to explain the complexity of decisions on what may be considered as an unfair labour practice.  

This week Ivan Israelstam explains how the word "unfair" is interpreted in labour law, and why it is so important for employers to understand what is regarded as unfair and what is automatically unfair. This is particularly important for employers to understand in relation to reasons for dismissal.

As the economy fails to grow and consumers struggle to make ends meet, businesses may suffer a loss of sales and profits.  May the employer automatically retrench workers? This week Ivan Israelstam examines the requirements upon an employer before they consider retrenching employees.    

Pages

Advertisement

Subscribe to dismissal