misconduct

In medium to large size companies, there will usually be a number of specialist departments. It is critical that employees within the company understand that any communication arriving from the CCMA should be passed on to the person designated to deal with CCMA matters. Failing to attend an arbitration hearing may well have serious - and expensive - consequences for the company. Ivan Israelstam provides cases to demonstrate the consequences of employer non-attendance.

The CCMA Guidelines: Misconduct Arbitrations (The Guidelines) states that it is not unfair for employers to use third parties such as attorneys to chair disciplinary hearings. However, these highly important guidelines do not give disciplinary hearing chairpersons the right to conduct such hearings in a biased manner. The Guidelines oblige Commissioners to assess whether workplace dismissals are fair or unfair, and it is difficult to see how such dismissals can be fair if the presiding officer is biased and if it is shown that such bias results directly in prejudice to the employee.

 

During 2014/15, and again in 2018, there have been a number of changes made to the legislation affecting the obligations of employers and the rights of employees, and responsibilities of commissioners presiding over misconduct hearings.  This week Ivan Israelstam points out that employers are failing to defend their decisions at the CCMA. A number of important changes are listed and Ivan will be covering these over the coming weeks.

Employers sometimes know that misconduct has definitely taken place, but the employer can’t pinpoint the actual culprit/s. The temptation is to dismiss every employee, who may have possibly been involved. This week ivan Israelstam deals with cases where this has happened.

"Don't miss the arbitration hearing! It may well continue without you." Good advice from Ivan Israelstam this week. But what should you do if you didn't receive the notice of the arbitration hearing? Ivan explains how to proceed with a rescission application.   

This week Ivan Israelstam provides a comprehensive explanation on what is required to investigate allegations of misconduct.  Ivan points out that ignoring incidents represents poor management, but before acting upon allegations of misconduct, it is important to conduct investigation into the all the relevant evidence of misconduct. 

This week, Ivan Israelstam explains the legally distinct reasons for dismissal: for misconduct, for poor work performance, and for operational requirements.  These are distinctly different reasons, and each has a distinctly different procedure to achieve a legally compliant dismissal. There are always exceptions in the cases, but employers are well-advised to follow the standard methods for each circumstance. 

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..

Subscribe to misconduct