Search Results

In Umgeni Water V Naidoo And Another (11489/2017P) [2022] ZAKZPHC 80 (15 December 2022) The employer was involved in the bulk distribution of water in KwaZulu-Natal. The state-owned entity (SoE) designed a graduate development programme. The employer accepted selected graduates from universities onto the programme with the hope that they would remain with the employer once they had successfully completed it. The employee successfully applied for a place on the programme. The requirement for the post was, at least, a bachelors degree in engineering. The employee said that he had a B.Sc. degree in Engineering that he had obtained from the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN). He produced a copy of his degree and academic results which resulted in his appointment. The employer alleged that the employee’s qualification were false and fraudulent and that he did not have a B.Sc. degree from the University, or from any other university. The SoE gave evidence that it would not have appointed the employee if it had known that the employee did not have the relevant qualifications. The employee worked for the SoE from 1 September 2008 until the employee’s resignation, in 2016. Upon discovering of the fraud, the employer sought the repayment of all amounts that it paid the employee. The SoE applied to have the monies recovered from the employee’s pension benefit. The essential issue to be determined, therefore, was if the employee had graduated from UKZN with a B.Sc. degree in Chemical Engineering or if there was fraud present. The Employee’s Degree Could Not Be Verified The employee presented nothing to the employer to substantiate that he had a degree. He then tendered his resignation and said that he would serve out his month-long contractual notice. This was not accepted by the employer, as disciplinary proceedings had by then already began against the employee. However, a few days later, on 29 November 2016, the employee submitted another resignation letter, indicating that he now would be resigning with immediate effect. The Disciplinary Process The employer called a witness from the university to testify that the employee begun his studies in the Faculty of Chemical Engineering in 2002 but was thereafter excluded from that faculty in 2004 because he had failed to make significant academic progress with his studies. By way of contrast, the academic record relied upon by the employee showed six years of successful study and made no reference at all to him being excluded from the faculty. The Court Process The High Court (HC) found that the employee had committed fraud and further that the employer intended to contract with the employee on the basis that it believed that he had the required degree from UKZN. It turned out that he did not have that degree. Had the employer known this, it would never have contracted with the employee or appointed him to any position. In other words, no relationship with the employee would have been developed and no money would consequently have been paid to him by the employer. The employer claimed the return of all that it paid the employee. Where restitution is claimed, the party claiming it is ordinarily required to tender that which it had received during the disputed relationship. The HC found that once the employer proved the fraud committed against it, and that the contract had been terminated, it had become entitled to repayment of the amounts that it paid the employee in the absence of any evidence proving that restitution would be unjust. On the evidence led before the HC, it found there was no grounds to justify the employee not paying the employer back what had been paid to him during his employment. The employee was ordered to return what he received from the employer arising out of the fraud that he committed against it. Accordingly, the HC granted the following order: Judgment in favour of the employer against the employee for payment of the amount of R2203565.04; Interest on the judgment amount at the prescribed legal rate of interest from the date of demand to the date of final payment; Declaring that the employer is entitled to execute this judgment against the employee’s provident fund administered by the second defendant; The employee would pay the employer’s costs on the scale as between attorney and client. This case sets a great precedent for the employer’s right to recover damages arising from fraud. It is important to ensure proper verification processes as well as have your offer of employment letters address the conditions of employment.

In the case of INDEPENDENT RISK DISTRIBUTORS SA (PTY) LTD V CCMA AND OTHERS (JR 1906/19) [2022] ZALCJHB 282 The employee was charged with misconduct, for gross insubordination. The employer took issue with the employee for challenging and/or undermining the authority of the company’s CEO during a staff meeting which was held on 05 December 2018, by questioning and/or challenging an instruction issued by the CEO whilst in the presence of his colleagues. The purpose of the meeting was for the CEO to address the Sales Representatives’ underperformance. During this meeting, the CEO issued an instruction to all the Sales Representatives, including the employee, to go home and reflect on their performance. According to the employer, the employee proceeded to challenge and/or undermine the authority of the CEO during the meeting by questioning and/or challenging the instruction in a rude and disrespectful manner in the presence of his co-workers. In response to the conduct, a disciplinary hearing was held on 23 January 2019, and he was found guilty of the allegations and dismissed on 31 January 2019. The employee escalated the matter to arbitration. In his evidence, the employee denied disrespecting the CEO or being insubordinate and testified that all he asked was why he was part of the non-performers. He did not refuse to carry out an instruction from the CEO, but merely sought clarity. After analysing the evidence and argument, the Arbitrator found that the employee’s dismissal was substantively unfair and ruled that the employer should reinstate him to his position on the same terms and conditions obtained prior to his dismissal and that he must report for duty on 20 August 2019. The employer took this award on review to the Labour Court (LC). The Court found that the sanction of dismissal is reserved for instances of gross insolence and gross insubordination or the wilful flouting of the instructions of the employer.” This means the insubordination must be serious, persistent, and deliberate. The LC agreed with the Commissioner’s conclusions that the insubordination in question was not gross insubordination and did not warrant dismissal. It found that the employee’s questions at the meeting were aimed at seeking clarification regarding why he was also being sent home, despite not having poorly performed, and once that clarification was given, he complied with the instruction to go home. What was more, it is accepted that employees do not lose their Constitutional Rights as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, such as freedom of expression guaranteed in section 16(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, merely by reason of being in the workplace. Having considered the submissions, and the law, the LC found that the dismissal of the employee by the employer was substantively unfair and the Commissioner’s ruling was upheld.

In today’s rapidly changing and disruptive world, where job profiles and skill sets evolve at an unprecedented pace, it is crucial for employers to distinguish between employee misconduct and incapacity. Understanding whether an employee is incapable of meeting job requirements or engaging in intentional misconduct is essential for appropriate management and decision-making. By carefully investigating relevant information and considering specific questions, employers can gain insights to differentiate between the two scenarios. Here are some guiding questions to help in the process: Is the employee aware of the standard or performance requirement? The first step in determining misconduct versus incapacity is assessing the employee’s awareness of the expected standards or performance requirements. Misconduct suggests that the employee is consciously deviating from established rules or expectations. If it becomes evident that the employee is fully aware of the standards but fails to meet them intentionally, misconduct is more likely the issue at hand. Is the job content unchanged (i.e., the same as it used to be)? A significant alteration in job content or responsibilities can contribute to an employee’s incapacity to meet performance requirements. If the nature of the job has changed substantially, such as through significant technological advancements or organizational restructuring, the employee may struggle to adapt, resulting in incapacity rather than misconduct. Do the employee’s personal circumstances seem to be fine? Personal circumstances can have a significant impact on an employee’s ability to perform their duties. If the employee is experiencing personal challenges, such as health issues, family problems, or financial difficulties, it may hinder their performance and suggest incapacity rather than misconduct. Understanding the employee’s personal situation can provide valuable context for evaluating their behaviour. Has the employee been trained in respect of that position? Proper training is essential for employees to meet job requirements effectively. If an employee lacks the necessary training or has not received adequate support to perform their role, it may indicate incapacity rather than deliberate misconduct. A lack of training can result in employees struggling to meet expectations, even if they have the intention to do so. Are the standards reasonable and achievable? Evaluating the reasonableness and achievability of performance standards is crucial when differentiating between misconduct and incapacity. If the standards are unreasonably high, unattainable, or not clearly communicated to the employee, it can contribute to their incapacity to meet expectations. In such cases, incapacity procedures should be invoked to explore the underlying causes. By considering these guiding questions, employers can gain a better understanding of whether an employee’s behavior stems from intentional misconduct or genuine incapacity. If the answers to all the questions indicate that the employee is aware of the standards, the job content remains consistent, personal circumstances are not a significant factor, the employee has received appropriate training, and the standards are reasonable and achievable, then misconduct is likely the issue. However, if the answer to any of these questions is “no,” it suggests that the employee may be facing underlying challenges or incapacity issues. In such instances, employers should initiate incapacity procedures to further investigate the causes and provide appropriate support to help the employee overcome their limitations. Differentiating between misconduct and incapacity is crucial for fair and effective employee management. By following a systematic approach and considering the relevant factors, employers can make informed decisions that promote a positive work environment while addressing performance issues appropriately.

When an employee absconds and deserts their employment but later wishes to return and resume work, the employer should generally follow a fair and reasonable process to address the situation. Herewith some guidelines in this regard: Review the employment contract : Examine the employee’s contract to determine if it contains any provisions regarding absconding or desertion and the consequences of such actions. The contract may outline specific procedures to be followed. Contact the employee : Once the employee returns and expresses a desire to resume work, contact them to discuss the situation. Arrange a meeting to clarify the reasons for their absence and gather any necessary information. Conduct an investigation : During the meeting, conduct an investigation to determine the facts surrounding the employee’s absence. This may involve asking the employee questions, reviewing any supporting documentation they provide, and speaking to other relevant parties. Hold a disciplinary hearing : If the investigation reveals that the employee’s absence constituted misconduct or a breach of the employment contract, hold a disciplinary hearing. Provide the employee with a notice of disciplinary hearing, clearly outlining the allegations against them and the date, time, and location of the hearing. Allow the employee to present their case : At the disciplinary hearing, provide the employee with an opportunity to present their side of the story, provide any evidence or witnesses in their defence, and respond to the allegations against them. Make a decision : After considering the evidence presented at the disciplinary hearing, make a fair and impartial decision. If the employee is found guilty of misconduct, consider an appropriate disciplinary sanction based on the severity of the offence and any relevant mitigation factors. Communicate the decision : Inform the employee of the disciplinary decision in writing, clearly explaining the outcome, any disciplinary action imposed, and the reasons for the decision.

South Africa has long been recognised for its journey towards democracy and the promotion of human rights. In line with this commitment, the country is currently deliberating a hate speech bill in parliament, aiming to address the rise of hate speech and unfair discrimination. This proposed legislation holds significant implications for workplace conduct, particularly for leaders, managers, and employees. In this article, we will examine the hate speech bill and explore how it may impact the behaviour and responsibilities of individuals within the workplace. Understanding the Hate Speech Bill The hate speech bill seeks to regulate and criminalize hate speech, as well as other forms of discrimination, in South Africa. It aims to provide a clear legal framework to combat hate speech and protect marginalized communities from targeted abuse. The bill aligns with South Africa’s constitutional commitment to equality, freedom of expression, and the prohibition of unfair discrimination. Key Provisions of the Hate Speech Bill Definition of hate speech: The bill provides a comprehensive definition of hate speech, which includes any communication that promotes or incites harm, violence, or hatred based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or any other protected characteristic. Criminal liability: The proposed legislation imposes criminal liability for hate speech offenses, including fines and imprisonment. This provision demonstrates the seriousness with which the South African government intends to tackle hate speech. Liability for employers: The bill also holds employers accountable for hate speech offenses committed by their employees in the workplace. This provision places greater responsibility on employers to create a safe and inclusive environment, free from hate speech and discrimination. Impact on Workplace Conduct Increased awareness and sensitivity: The hate speech bill is likely to raise awareness about the consequences of hate speech in the workplace. Leaders, managers, and employees will need to become more sensitive to their language and actions, fostering a culture of respect, diversity, and inclusion. Strengthened policies and training: Organizations will need to review and update their policies on harassment, discrimination, and hate speech to align with the new legal requirements. Comprehensive training programs can help employees understand the boundaries of acceptable behaviour and the potential consequences of their actions. Promoting diversity and inclusion: The hate speech bill may serve as a catalyst for organizations to prioritize diversity and inclusion initiatives. Employers will need to actively promote a workplace culture that celebrates differences, embraces diversity, and ensures equal treatment for all employees. Enhanced disciplinary measures: Organizations may need to implement stricter disciplinary measures to address hate speech incidents promptly. Employers must establish clear procedures for reporting offenses and investigate complaints diligently. This approach will help create a safe and supportive environment for employees. Encouraging dialogue and education: The hate speech bill provides an opportunity for organizations to foster open dialogue and educate employees about the importance of respectful communication. By engaging in constructive conversations, employers can promote understanding, empathy, and awareness of the potential impact of hate speech on individuals and communities. The proposed legislation will undoubtedly impact workplace conduct, demanding greater responsibility from leaders, managers, and employees. By embracing the principles of diversity, inclusion, and respect, organizations can create harmonious work environments that reflect South Africa’s commitment to equality and human rights.

The probationary period is a vital tool for employers to assess an employee’s suitability for a particular role. Under the Labour Relations Act, Schedule 8, employers have the opportunity to utilise probationary provisions to evaluate an employee’s performance and determine their ability to fulfil the requirements of the job. However, it is crucial for employers to ensure that probationary periods are reasonable in duration and that employees are given a fair opportunity to respond before any dismissal decisions are made. In this article, we will explore key considerations and best practices for employers to effectively utilise the probationary provision in the Labour Relations Act. Establishing a Reasonable Probationary Period: The first step in utilizing the probationary provision is to establish a reasonable probationary period. While the Act does not provide a specific duration for probation , it is essential to consider the complexity of the role and the time required to adequately assess an employee’s competence. A reasonable probationary period should be clearly communicated to the employee in their employment contract or offer letter, outlining expectations, evaluation criteria, and any specific milestones or goals. Defining Clear Performance Expectations: To ensure a fair assessment, employers must establish clear performance expectations and criteria for the probationary period. This includes providing new employees with a detailed job description, outlining the essential duties, responsibilities, and performance standards. By setting clear expectations from the outset, employers can provide a framework for evaluation and give employees a fair opportunity to demonstrate their abilities. Regular Feedback and Performance Evaluation: During the probationary period, regular feedback and performance evaluations are crucial for both the employer and the employee. Employers should schedule periodic meetings to discuss the employee’s progress, address any concerns, and provide constructive feedback. These evaluations should be based on the established performance expectations and criteria, allowing the employee to understand their strengths and areas for improvement. Training, Support, and Development Opportunities: Employers should provide appropriate training, support, and development opportunities to help employees succeed during the probationary period. This may include orientation programs, mentoring, on-the-job training, or access to further professional development resources. By investing in an employee’s growth and development, employers can enhance their chances of success and create a positive work environment conducive to learning and improvement. Documentation and Communication: Throughout the probationary period, it is vital for employers to maintain accurate documentation of the employee’s performance, including any performance-related concerns, discussions, and improvement plans. Clear and open communication is essential, as employees need to be aware of any areas requiring improvement and have a fair opportunity to address them. Employers should provide timely and constructive feedback, clearly outlining any performance issues and offering guidance on how to rectify them. Opportunity to Respond and Fair Dismissal Procedures: If, after a reasonable probationary period, an employer determines that an employee is not meeting the required standards, the employee must be given an opportunity to respond before any dismissal decision is made. Employers should conduct a fair and unbiased hearing , allowing the employee to present their case, explain any mitigating factors, or provide additional information. This ensures procedural fairness and gives the employee a chance to address any concerns raised. The probationary provision in the Labour Relations Act provides employers with a valuable tool to assess an employee’s suitability for a job. Herewith some case law for reference of key legal pronciples. SABC vs McKenzie (2010): In this case, the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) dismissed an employee during her probationary period without providing her an opportunity to respond. The court ruled that the employer’s failure to afford the employee a hearing before dismissal contravened the principles of procedural fairness. The case emphasized that employers must allow employees to present their side of the story and respond to any allegations or concerns raised during the probationary period. University of the Witwatersrand vs Raselekoane (2013): In this case, the court addressed the issue of a reasonable probationary period. The employee was dismissed after serving a probationary period of one week due to alleged poor performance. The court held that such a short probationary period was unreasonable and did not provide the employee with a fair opportunity to demonstrate her capabilities. The case highlighted that employers must establish a reasonable probationary period that allows employees sufficient time to prove their suitability for the position. NUMSA obo Khumalo v. Minister of Defence (2017): This case dealt with the employer’s duty to provide employees with clear performance expectations during the probationary period. The court emphasized that employers must establish and communicate clear criteria and standards against which an employee’s performance will be evaluated. The absence of well-defined performance expectations was deemed unfair to the employee, as they were not given a fair opportunity to meet the employer’s requirements. Mafadi Security Services (Pty) Ltd. v. Satawu obo Lephoto (2019): In this case, an employee was dismissed during the probationary period without any prior warnings or opportunity to respond. The court held that the employee’s dismissal was procedurally unfair, as the employer failed to follow fair dismissal procedures. The case highlighted the importance of providing employees with fair and reasonable opportunities to address any performance concerns or allegations before making a dismissal decision.

In South Africa, stringent regulations govern smoking in workplaces to protect the health and well-being of employees. It is crucial for employers and employees alike to be aware of these regulations and ensure compliance. In this article, we will provide a comprehensive guide to smoking regulations in South African workplaces, outlining the key requirements and responsibilities for creating a smoke-free environment. The Tobacco Products Control Act (1993): The Tobacco Products Control Act serves as the primary legislation governing smoking in South Africa. It sets out various provisions and regulations that employers must adhere to in order to maintain a smoke-free workplace. These regulations apply to all workplaces, including indoor and outdoor areas. Smoking in Enclosed Spaces: The Act strictly prohibits smoking in enclosed spaces within the workplace. Enclosed spaces refer to any area that is substantially enclosed by walls, windows, or a roof. This includes offices, meeting rooms, corridors, restrooms, and other confined areas. Employers must ensure that these spaces are completely smoke-free and establish designated outdoor smoking areas, if permitted. Designated Smoking Areas: If employers choose to provide designated smoking areas, certain conditions must be met. These areas must be located in well-ventilated outdoor spaces, away from entrances, exits, and areas where non-smokers frequent. Signage indicating smoking areas should be clear and prominently displayed. It is important to note that some workplaces, such as healthcare facilities and childcare centres, may be completely smoke-free with no provision for designated smoking areas. Workplace Policies: Employers should develop and implement clear smoking policies that outline the rules and expectations regarding smoking in the workplace. These policies should be communicated to all employees, contractors, and visitors. Policies should include information on the prohibition of smoking in enclosed spaces, the location and rules for designated smoking areas (if applicable), and the consequences for non-compliance. Awareness and Education: Promoting awareness and educating employees about the hazards of smoking and their rights within the workplace is crucial. Employers should provide information on the dangers of smoking, the benefits of a smoke-free environment, and available support for employees who wish to quit smoking. This can be done through training sessions, awareness campaigns, and the provision of educational materials. Enforcement and Consequences: Employers have a responsibility to enforce smoking regulations and take appropriate action against individuals who fail to comply. This may include verbal warnings, written warnings, or disciplinary measures in line with company policies. Consistent enforcement is essential to maintain a smoke-free workplace and protect the rights of non-smoking employees. Creating a smoke-free workplace in South Africa is not only a legal requirement but also a necessary step towards ensuring the health and well-being of employees. By understanding and complying with smoking regulations, employers can establish an environment that promotes a healthier workforce and reduces the risks associated with smoking. It is vital for employers to develop clear smoking policies, communicate them effectively, and enforce them consistently to promote a culture of compliance and foster a healthier workplace for all. Examples of relevant South African case law that highlight the importance of complying with smoking regulations in the workplace: National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight and Logistics Industry vs SA Transport and Allied Workers Union (2013): In this case, the court ruled in favour of the employer, affirming the right to enforce a smoke-free workplace policy. The court held that the employer had the authority to prohibit smoking in all company vehicles and offices, as well as in designated outdoor areas. The case emphasized the employer’s duty to protect the health and safety of employees and highlighted the importance of clear and enforceable smoking policies. Harmony Gold Mining Co. Ltd vs Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (2017): This case dealt with the issue of smoking in enclosed spaces within the mining industry. The court held that the employer had a duty to maintain a smoke-free workplace and that smoking in enclosed spaces posed a health risk to employees. The ruling reinforced the prohibition of smoking in enclosed areas and underscored the obligation of employers to provide a safe and healthy working environment. Mankayi vs AngloGold Ashanti Ltd (2011): Although not directly related to workplace smoking, this case emphasized the importance of protecting employees from harmful substances, including second-hand smoke. The court held that the employer breached its duty of care by failing to protect employees from excessive exposure to dust and other harmful substances, leading to occupational lung disease. This case highlighted the broader duty of employers to safeguard employees’ health and well-being in the workplace.

It is common knowledge that approximately 27 000 designated employers submit their EEA 2’s every year, covering the interests of more than 6 000 000 employees. Global Business Solutions is often called upon to conduct sector-specific research and benchmarking for its clients in order to better inform EE strategy and planning. The matrix below depicts the changes in the number of employees per occupational level over the past 5 years (column #1 is 2022/23 and column #2 is 2017/18) – It is evident that the number of overall employees has decreased. Top and senior management have decreased by 39% and 32% respectively and unskilled by 26%. This trend is likely attributable to the management “recession” and technological changes which have resulted in the ability to operate without a large amount of senior managers as well as unskilled employees as repetitive tasks can be automated and data allows for edge-centric decision-making. Flatter organisational structures as well as we increases in outsourcing, sub-contracting and mechanisation are also driving these trends. The statistics SA graph below reflects how large (mostly, designated employers) organisations have a much lower ratio of employment to income as they have access to resources that optimise workforce productivity. It is likely that this trend will increase going forward as we approach the 5IR. Employers need to train for employment security and future skills if they are to assist in addressing unemployment, poverty and inequality. The Future Skills Needs of the W&R Sector set out below provides great insight into the nature and extent of what the core competency requirements are.

A difference in terms and conditions of employment between employees of the same employer performing the same or substantially the same work or work of equal value that is directly or indirectly based on any one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (1), is unfair discrimination. (s6(4) of EE Act) The above provision is subject to consultation under s16 of the EE Act in that the analysis of policies, procedures and practices includes “remuneration” as well as “terms and conditions of employment”. Furthermore, s27 of the EE Act requires that reasonable progress is made to eliminate disproportionate income differentials that are identified. How then can this be done, unless there is reasonable disclosure of remuneration trends based on race, gender and disability in the designated employer’s organisation? The first hint is in the EE Act that states that the provisions of s16 of the LRA apply in context – An employer is not required to disclose information— (a) that is legally privileged; (b) that the employer cannot disclose without contravening a prohibition imposed on the employer by any law or order of any court; (c) that is confidential and, if disclosed, may cause substantial harm to an employee or the employer; or (d) that is private personal information relating to an employee, unless that employee consents to the disclosure of that information . The question is whether and to what extent remuneration is confidential and if disclosed could cause substantial harm to either party as well as what POPI would have to say about this. From a POPI viewpoint it could be argued that one of the legal principles of processing personal information (limitation) allows for the processing of personal information if it is a requirement to comply with law. The second legal provision applicable to this topic is that contained in the BCEA in s78 (refer to point (b) in particular) – Every employee has the right to— (a) make a complaint to a trade union representative, a trade union official or a labour inspector concerning any alleged failure or refusal by an employer to comply with this Act or the National Minimum Wage Act, 2018; (b) discuss his or her conditions of employment with his or her fellow employees, his or her employer or any other person; (c) refuse to comply with an instruction that is contrary to this Act, the National Minimum Wage Act, 2018, or any sectoral determination; (d) refuse to agree to any term or condition of employment that is contrary to this Act, the National Minimum Wage Act, 2018, or any sectoral determination; (e) inspect any record kept in terms of this Act or the National Minimum Wage Act, 2018, that relates to the employment of that employee; (f) participate in proceedings in terms of this Act; (g) request a trade union representative or a labour inspector to inspect any record kept in terms of this Act and that relates to the employment of that employee. It could well be argued by parties to the employment relationship that disclosure should be balanced and clear enough to provide details on race, gender and disability trends as well as to the nature and extent of the imbalances so that the committee members can consult on barriers, AA measures and steps to take in making progress in eliminating the unjustifiable differentials in income over a reasonable time period.

As of 1 July 2021, the responsibility for the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) has transferred from the Human Rights Commission to the Information Regulator. This means that both POPI and PAIA reside with the Information Regulator. On 29 July 2021, the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services signed the revised PAIA regulations into law. Where POPIA obliges responsible parties to protect the personal information of data subjects, the PAIA statute and regulations create a framework within which third parties (who include but are not limited to data subjects) can request access to records held by the organisation in order to pursue particular legal rights. The PAIA Regulations require Information Officers to ensure that the PAIA Guide, which explains how information requesters can go about their requests, is available for free in at least two official languages at the registered head office. There is a form that requesters of information can use to capture and submit their requests and the Information Officer is obliged to assist with this process. Once the Information Officer has considered the request, the outcome of the request must be communicated to the requester. In respect of Private Bodies, there is a schedule of fees that can be charged to requesters in respect of photocopies, flash drives, CDs, transcription of visual images, and the like. It is highly advised that organisations ensure that, in addition to the above, the PAIA Manual, as well as the PAIA guide, are posted on the website of the organisation as well. We recommend you do now the following: Use the new PAIA s51 manual template and populate it. We have included some comments as well to assist. This must replace your current s51 manual and please ensure you complete it in detail. Also, note that the fee structures have changed. Remember that you need to keep a hard copy of the s51 PAIA manual at your Head Office as well as the s10 PAIA Guide in two official languages (which we are still waiting for the Information Regulator to review and publish – you will get these for free from the Information Regulator when they have reviewed it) and you need to have the updated s51 PAIA manual and the PAIA guide on your website. All the supporting forms are on the Information Regulator website.