top of page

Labour law provides few employer protections

BY Ivan Israelstam, Chief Executive of Labour Law Management Consulting. He may be contacted on (011) 888-7944 or 0828522973 or on e-mail address: ivan@labourlawadvice.co.za. Go to: www.labourlawadvice.co.za


South Africa’s Labour Relations Act of 1956 was replaced soon after the transition of government in the mid 1990s because it was considered to favour employers in the view of the new government and its trade union allies. By 1995 South Africa’s new constitution had entrenched labour law rights very strongly and the labour movement had become very strong. As a result of these developments employers were unable to prevent the inclusion of very restrictive provisions into the new Labour Relations Act of 1995 (LRA).


As time has passed the trade unions have been able to add further and stronger employee protections into the LRA. In addition, CCMA awards and Labour Court judgements have, over time, become more and more employee friendly. Examples of these burgeoning legal protections for employees include:


  • Employees are entitled to join and participate in legitimate trade union activity without fear of being fired for this

  • Employees are entitled to refuse to do the work of colleagues who are on strike

  • Employees are entitled to a disciplinary hearing even where they are accused of being on an unprotected (illegal) strike

  • Employees appear to have the right to motivate for permission to bring an external representative (e.g. a lawyer or trade union representative) to disciplinary hearings

  • Employers may not terminate the employment of employees for reasons related to a takeover of a business as a going concern. This is irrespective of whether the termination takes place before or after the takeover.

  • Employers are obliged to renew fixed-term employment contracts if the employees concerned have a reasonable expectation of such renewal.

  • Where the employer considers an employee to have absconded (left the employment without resigning) it cannot replace the employee without following a set of onerous procedures

  • Where an employee accuses an employer in court or at the CCMA of having dismissed him unfairly and the existence of the dismissal is established the employer is assumed guilty of unfair dismissal until it proves itself innocent.

  • The CCMA is entitled to overturn the sanction of dismissal imposed by an employer even if the dismissal sanction could be seen by reasonable people to be fair

  • Where an employer contemplates terminating the employment of an employee it is required to follow complex and stringent procedures before it can do so. Many employers find these procedural requirements so onerous that they either try to bypass them or are afraid to ever dismiss employees.


In the case of Ntoyake vs Open Arms Home for Children (2007, 10 BALR 946) the accused, the resident manager of the children’s home, was dismissed for appearing in front of the children in an intoxicated state. The CCMA agreed that Ntoyake was in fact guilty of this charge and that dismissal was an appropriate sanction. However, the arbitrator still found the dismissal to be unfair because the employee had not, at the disciplinary hearing, been given the chance to cross examine those who had raised the complaint. That is, the employer’s failure to facilitate the cross examination phase of the disciplinary procedure caused it to lose the case.


As a result of these statutory provisions and case law decisions South African employees are amongst the best protected in the world today. It is clear that the intention of these laws is primarily to keep employees employed even if this results in difficulties for the employer. It seems that, based on recent patterns, as the new dispensation gets older the legal protection of employees is likely continue to strengthen, and the ability of employers to run their organisations effectively could be increasingly hampered.


Despite this gloomy outlook employers are strongly encouraged not to crack under the strain. Instead they are encouraged to develop the following simple strategy which can be very effective in protecting the damage to their businesses that can be done by employees who take unfair advantage of labour legislation. That is, employers should:


With the help of labour law specialists, acquire the expertise needed to ensure that errant, incapacitated or redundant employees are not approached until proper procedures are in place


Join an Employers Organisation (trade union for employers) to represent the employer in dealings with unions and at the CCMA and bargaining councils.


To observe our experts debating hot labour law topics please go to www.labourlawadvice.co.za and click on the Labour Law Debate item in the main menu.


The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the view of Lexinfo CC.


Posted: 08 February 2022

Image: Wix

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page