Article Archive

Poor work performance is often difficult to pin down.Retrenching the employee might seem like an easy way out, but can this be done legally and fairly?

How does one get rid of an employee who does not meet the employer’s expectations? The idea of a fixed-term contract might seem a good solution, but this idea might be flawed!

What must I do if a number of employees are collectively responsible for stock losses? There is a way to resolve this tricky scenario.

It is not uncommon for an employee to resign in the face of a disciplinary hearing. Can the employer offer resignation as an alternative to disciplinary action?

Few employment-related problems are as difficult to manage as absenteeism. In some cases disciplinary action can be taken and in other cases a different approach may be indicated.

The imprtance of being consistent in applying discipline cannot be over-emphasised.

If your employee comes back from sick leave with a sick note, it does not necessarily mean you have to accept it.

Most employers know by now how to deal with employees who break the rules or don’t meet performance standards. It is not so apparent what should be done in the case of an employee with unusual personality traits or other qualities that cause the employee to be incompatible in the working environment.

Labour laws are there to protect all workers. Senior managerial employees and high earners do not, however, enjoy the same degree of protection as other employees. In this article we briefly investigate the extent of protection for these senior managerial employees.

Business owners who have not been informed about the Promotion of Access to Information Actof 2000 ( hereafter referred to as “the Act”), have reason to be worried.

An overview of some of the changes in labour legislation in 2002. Some practical guidelines on implementation.

During 2002 several important amendments were made to South African labour legislation. There are some amendments we should take cognisance of but they do not require us to take any action unless something happens such as a retrenchment exercise or the dismissal of an employee. However, there are other changes where it is in an employer’s interest to take pro-active steps.

With the end of the year around the corner, some employers face the prospect of employees going on leave and not returning on the due date or not returning at all. What is the correct way of dealing with such a situation?

The so-called “con-arb” procedure was recently introduced as one of the amendments to the Labour Relations Act. It is an attempt to speed up the resolution of disputes at the CCMA and Bargaining Councils. Whilst it might be a good initiative, employers would have to be more diligent. If not it could lead to embarrassment and unfortunate consequences.

Flirtation with colleagues at work is commonplace. Yet, what one person might regard as a light flirtation, another might consider to be sexual harassment. These different perspectives could potentially create problems for the employer. The labour court has recently found in a well-publicized case, that the employer could be held liable for the actions of its employees if it does not intervene.

As far as retrenchment is concerned, not much has changed for employers who employ 50 or fewer employees (See the Labourwise article of May 2002 on www.labourwise.co.za). However, employers employing more than 50 employees and considering reducing their staff, face a more challenging process. This article concentrates on the practical implications of the relevant amendments to the Labour Relations Act of 1995.

The recent amendment to the Labour Relations Act pertaining to probation has been well received by employers. The purpose and period of and the procedures to be followed during probation are clarified in Schedule 8 of the Act, as amended. But is it really easier now to dismiss an employee on probation?

Due to the growing prevalence of HIV in society, employers are experiencing an increasing impact on the workplace. Absenteeism is increasing and speculation about the risks to non-infected persons is rife. Are employers permitted to assess the extent of the disease in their workplace, or even go so far as to determine the identities of those who are infected?