Search Results

According to section 22 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA), a “sick leave cycle” means a period of 36 months of employment with the same employer. This period immediately follows: An employee’s commencement of employment; or The completion of that employee’s prior sick leave cycle. During every leave cycle of this nature, an employee is entitled to an amount of paid sick leave equal to the number of days that the employee would normally work during a period of six weeks. During the first six months of employment, an employee is entitled to one day’s paid sick leave for every 26 days worked. During an employee’s first cycle, an employer may reduce the employee’s entitlement to sick leave by the number of days’ leave taken. An employer must pay an employee for a day’s leave: The wage the employee would ordinarily have received for work on that day; And on the employee’s usual pay day. An Agreement About Sick Leave An agreement may reduce the pay to which an employee is entitled for any day’s absence if: The number of days of paid sick leave is increased at least commensurately with any reduction in the daily amount of sick pay; and The employee’s entitlement to pay: – For any day’s sick leave is at least 75% of the wage payable to the employee for the ordinary hours the employee would have worked; and – For sick leave over the sick leave cycle is at least equivalent to the employee’s entitlement. Don’t Let Employees Pull The Wool Over Your Eyes! Very often, employees will try to pull the wool over their eyes and try to apply for sick leave – when there’s no reason for this. Join us for the Managing Absenteeism and Leave Abuse course and never again be fooled by employees who are chancing their arms.

In the 3IR, the hierarchical structures underpinned by a centralised command and control culture of managers worked for many organisations, despite themselves. One reason for this is that consumers had limited choices and the pace of change was slow. Products and services changed but there was no real transformation. The top banks, the biggest retail outlets, and the household cinema names decided what they would push into the marketplace based on “inside-out” business strategies. One would be forgiven to have labeled many of the executives of the said businesses as mutual admiration societies where they were more concerned with their self-centered egos than with the client and customer needs. This reality is evident when one engages with executive teams and managers who are still running businesses, even though they have not transformed themselves. The fruits of such executive teams are conflict, self-centredness, selfish ambition, and a lack of trust. The reason – in the 4IR the structures are becoming flatter, collaborative teams that are client-centric and build outside-in business strategies are needed, and high levels of trust determine the agility of to respond to change. The 3IR manager who is incapable of becoming a 4IR leader will ultimately not survive and if the organisation allows the 3IR manager to continue to operate, the result will be employees who are disengaged, don’t have a sense of belonging, and will ultimately bring the organisation to its knees. Building Sustainable Businesses What then should organisations do in order to turn the corner into building sustainable businesses in the 4IR? The answer is that they need to build both the character and the competence of their leaders and then cascade this across and downward through the organisation. Generally speaking, competence is present in the form of skills, knowledge, and experience (although skillsets required are changing very quickly). What is missing is trust, managing and leading with EQ, a lack of client-centric thinking, and decisions that are still based on quantitative data only rather than a combination of quantitative and qualitative human-centric information. Empathising with clients, customers and employees is a capability that largely escapes many executives and managers who are in it for themselves rather than leveraging the principles of exponential return that can come from putting the interests of others first. It is my view that many organisations that have been victims of the 4IR (which has been accelerated by C19) can trace their demise back to the executives who were more interested in their comfort than their character. How do we know this? Well, take a look and see the absence of EQ and transformational leadership training in the WSPs of businesses. Despite trust being at an all-time low as a result of retrenchments, remuneration cuts, personal loss, and the like, the absence of these initiatives is deafening. If you would like to get in touch with me, please don’t hesitate to email me at john@globalbusiness.co.za .

The Employment Equity Act (EEA) provides guidelines on how to deal with unfair discrimination and recourse for employees who suffer the consequences of unfair discrimination. It is about promoting equal opportunities for all employees and seeks to redress imbalances of the past that were experienced by historically disadvantaged individuals (who are known as designated groups). Section 60 obliges the employer to promote awareness and act immediately when learning of possible discrimination: (1) If it is alleged that an employee, while at work, contravened a provision of this Act, or engaged in any conduct that, if engaged in by that employee’s employer, would constitute a contravention of a provision of this Act, the alleged conduct must immediately be brought to the attention of the employer. (2) The employer must consult all relevant parties and must take the necessary steps to eliminate the alleged conduct and comply with the provisions of this Act. (3) If the employer fails to take the necessary steps referred to in subsection 2, and it is proved that the employee has contravened the relevant provision, the employer must be deemed also to have contravened that provision. (4) Despite subsection (3), an employer is not liable for the conduct of an employee if that employer is able to prove that it did all that was reasonably practicable to ensure that the employee would not act in contravention of this Act. Non-receipt of Certificate Of Compliance The Employment Equity Act Amendments which are expected to be promulgated mid 2021 also propose that employers should not receive a certificate of compliance should they be found to have unfairly discriminated against employees. This certificate of compliance will prohibit employers from doing business with the state in terms of Section 53 of the EEA. There are no fines imposed for non-compliance with Chapter 2 of the EEA (unfair discrimination), however, the Act states that the CCMA and/ or Labour Court many make any appropriate award against the employer. Hence, aggrieved employees can refer unfair discrimination claims to the CCMA and/or the Labour Court. The question now arises as to what recourse an individual can have against a perpetrator of unfair discrimination who is NOT an employee of the same employer (i.e. an external party such as a contractor or visitor to the workplace). This is where PEPUDA steps into the gap and enables litigation against such third parties. Whichever way you look at it, employers will be negligent not to design, implement, create awareness, enforce fair discrimination, and prohibit harassment of any person, albeit a fellow employee or otherwise. If you would like to discuss the above further – or any other employment equity matters with me – please don’t hesitate to contact me at thembi@globalbusiness.co.za .

Human resources (HR) professionals and practitioners are being called on to broaden their strategies and plans. In addition, HR is being called upon to address the entire length, breadth, and height of “people”: People as “employees” People as “contractors” People as part of the human cloud People as human beings People as talent. This requires that a number of things be put in place: The business strategy needs to be fully understood, The design of the HR strategy needs to be carefully aligned with the business strategy, The various workforce models available have to be evaluated, The competency requirements over the next five years need to be mapped, Policies and procedures need to be re-engineered, Employment contracts must be significantly revisited, and The entire employment life cycle has to come under the spotlight. Of course, don’t forget that to add to this complexity, the ever-changing labour laws and related statutes come into play – pending LRA and EEA amendments, COIDA amendments, UIF amendments, POPI, AARTO, and case law. Why You Need to Register for the Strategic HR Management Course In the Strategic Human Resources Management Course, we draw on global research and thought leaders to bring you a thought-provoking session that also looks at models and frameworks for HR strategy development.

The success of a disciplinary enquiry (DE) often depends on the effort which the representative puts into the preparation of the case. The value of thorough preparation cannot be emphasised enough. Regardless of whether the disciplinary enquiry will result in formal or informal disciplinary action, an investigation should always be done in order to make sure of the facts of the matter. It is not enough for the employer representative to rely on allegations, suspicions, or views in the disciplinary enquiry. The facts of the matter have to be investigated in sufficient detail in order to make a decision about if the disciplinary process is to be initiated and/or what sanction could possibly attach to the contravention. 3 Main Stages There are three main stages of disciplinary enquiry. These are the following: The Investigation, Conceptualisation Of The Case, and Formulation Of Charges. Learn how to Conduct a Disciplinary Enquiry Correctly with Global Business Solutions (GBS) In our Effective Discipline in The Workplace Course, you’ll gain practical skills required by both the initiator and the chairperson, the types of evidence and their weightings, how to present the evidence as well as how a chairperson should determine guilt on a balance of probabilities. Here’s a breakdown of what will be covered:

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly shifted the way in which people work. There has been a push to move online and, as a result, a number of work-from-home arrangements have been made. However, these types of arrangements pose challenges to management in terms of monitoring performance and ensuring that work outputs are timeously delivered. A case in point is that of Lucas Dysel Crouse Incorporated v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C784/2018) [2021] ZALCCT 3 (19 February 2021) . In this matter, an employee was taken to task for her excessive use of social media during working hours and also for accessing confidential information. Facts Of The Case In this matter, the employee was employed as a typist. On one occasion, she was filling in for the bookkeeper at reception and happened to see a sheet on which the salaries of all employees were detailed. The employee noticed that other employees had received pay increases while she had not. Subsequently, the employee took this matter up with management. The employer gave evidence that her performance at work was ‘slapdash’, as evidenced by the typing errors in her work, and that she spent excessive time on social media and playing games during work hours. The employer further stated that he should have fired her a long time ago, however he felt sorry for her. During the engagement with the employee, he invited her to resign. Her response was that the employer ‘should do what he wanted to’. This remark was construed as insubordination and, as a result, the employee was dismissed. The CCMA found that the dismissal of the employee was substantively unfair but procedurally fair. The employer was ordered to pay nine months' compensation. On review to the Labour Court, the Court overturned that decision finding that the employee had been spending excessive time on social media while the rest of her work was not being done. Although the Court found that she was not guilty of insubordination, they did find that the amount of time she spent on social media – including Facebook – was a problem. The employee’s Facebook usage, in the evidence, made up 54% of her non-work computer usage. Owing to this, the Labour Court confirmed that the decision of the dismissal was fair and not substantively unfair. The employer took a pragmatic approach. Looking at all the evidence, notwithstanding what the charge was, the Court took the view that considering all of the evidence the dismissal was substantively fair. Time spent on social media can be tracked by the employer. Many employees spend excessive time, not working but on social media platforms. If you have any queries, on matters such as the one above or other labour-law-related matters, please don’t hesitate to contact me at johnny@globalbusiness.co.za or Grant at grant@globalbusiness.co.za .

When addressing the equal pay for work of equal value requirements, organisations may be found wanting in the area of Temporary Employment Services (TES). In section 198, the Labour Relations Act (LRA) provides that employees of a TES who earn below the threshold and are placed on a client’s site are entitled to equal treatment. This requires the client and the TES to collaborate and align the overall cost to the company and employment terms of the TES employees with those of the client’s comparable permanent counterparts. In practice, this means that the client and the TES need to consider salaries and wages, annual leave provisions, and even access to vacancies and training of the TES employees. It may require the client to revise some policies such as recruitment policies, remuneration policies, and the like. There is significant financial and reputational risk tied up in non-compliance with these important provisions with CCMA awards amounting to millions of rands not being uncommon. Attend Our Equal Treatment And Equal Pay For Work Of Equal Value Online Workshop If you would like to learn more about equal pay provisions (such as those described in the article above) in your area of business then you need to attend our Equal Treatment and Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value Workshop on 15 April which is facilitated by John Botha and Thembi Chagonda .

Equality in remuneration is gaining statutory and litigious momentum with the existing provisions of the Employment Equity Act (EEA) and Codes of Practice underpinning no fewer than 826 CCMA referrals on equal pay disputes over the period April 2019 to February 2020. What is even more concerning is that the pending amendments to the EEA would result in employers losing these cases and not receiving EE Compliance Certificates for three years. This would exclude them from access to state tenders. By law, the EE plan must include measures to address unjustifiable income differentials within a reasonable time period. There are two dimensions to this – Firstly, the horizontal equal pay analysis in which people doing the same, similar or jobs of equal value should as a general principle be earning equitably; and Secondly, the vertical income gap between the top 10% of earners and the bottom 10% needs to be narrowed. Employers would be well positioned if they conducted the necessary analysis, identified gaps, drafted remuneration policies, and took steps to address these areas. Attend our Equal Treatment and Equal Pay for Work Of Equal Value Online Workshop If you would like to learn how to conduct the necessary analysis, identify gaps, draft remuneration policies, and take steps to address these areas, you need to attend our Equal Treatment and Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value Workshop on 15 April which is facilitated by John Botha and Thembi Chagonda .

The Minister of Employment and Labour has published Gazettes setting out the increases in the National Minimum Wage, various Sectoral Determinations as well as the “earnings threshold”. These will be effective on 1 March 2021 and the table set out below summarises the situation that employers will face come 1 March 2021. It is common knowledge that the business representatives made a minority submission to the National Minimum Wage Commission that most of these increases that are above CPI (3% at the time) would further damage the ailing economy and employment prospects. In particular, the equalisation of farm workers to the general minimum wage with immediate effect from 1 March 2021 represents around a 16% increase and that of domestic workers an 18% increase. These increases come at a difficult time for both employers and employees – the latter struggling to recover from the impact of C19 disruptions on earnings and employment prospects. Employment type Previous rate New rate % increase Impact Earnings threshold R205 433 pa R211 596 pa 3% (R6163) BCEA Chapter 2 working arrangements and certain equal treatment provisions in the LRA NMW General R20.76 ph R21.69 ph 4.5% (93cph) NMW Farm Workers R18.68 ph R21.69 ph 16% (R3.01) NMW Domestic Workers R15.57 ph R19.09 ph 18% (R3.52) Sectoral determinations 4.5% Contract Cleaning, Wholesale and retail etc

Critical for organisations are the amendments that were tabled and approved by Cabinet in February 2020 concerning the Employment Equity Act. In July 2020, the Minister of Employment and Labour published that the Bill would go to the National Assembly to start the Parliamentary process. The Parliamentary Monitoring Group published that the Employment Equity Amendment Bill was now available for public commentary until 19 February 2021. The amendments are fast reaching the point of promulgation and will require an extraordinary employer effort to ensure compliance with some of the amended regulations. What does the Employment Equity Amendment Bill Propose? The most significant amendment to the proposed Employment Equity Act is section 15A which empowers the Minister of Employment and Labour to prescribe numerical targets for sectors at all occupational levels to ensure the equitable representation of suitably qualified people from designated groups. This is followed by section 42, which deals with the assessment of organisational compliance. Specifically, section 42 provides that meeting the Ministerial Targets is a pre-requisite to compliance and the ultimate issuing of a compliance certificate. Finally, section 53(6) is a list of five criteria that an employer must meet to obtain a compliance certificate. Key to this is section 53, which has always been in the Employment Equity Act but has not been operational. It will be put into effect by these amendments. This will mean that State contracts may only be issued to employers who have been certified as being compliant with the obligations under the Employment Equity Act. One of these is the requirement to achieve the above numeral sector targets prescribed by the Minister. What does Not Attaining a Compliance Certificate Mean? Not attaining a compliance certificate would mean that these businesses would not be able to do business with the State. Currently, BBB-EE status is measured in terms of the Preferential Procurement Framework Act in relation to a 10% and 20% evaluation of the total score. This is dependent on the monetary amount of the tender. Should this amendment go through it will have far-reaching implications for those sectors that have not achieved these targets and are not getting a certificate. What is critical is that section 42 is not definitive enough and does not contain a clause that would recognise reasonable steps toward the employer achieving the applicable targets. In terms of section 64, the draft regulations make provision for a designated employer who applies for a certificate of compliance – (to be but has not achieved the applicable targets – to record justifiable reasons for not doing so. However, it is not good enough to have this in the regulations as it needs to be in the Act. In addition, it actively empowers the Minister to delegate his authority of compliance to inspectors. This could lead to far-reaching powers for inspectors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg-YBDYZKLM&feature=youtu.be The Five Compliance Criteria In Section 53 Interestingly if one looks at section 53 of the Employment Equity Amendment Bill, there are five criteria of compliance for a certificate of compliance: The employer has complied with a numerical target set in section 15A that applies to that employer. If an employer has not complied with any target set, the employer has raised a reasonable ground, to justify its failure to comply as contemplated by section 42(4). The employer has submitted a report in terms of section 21. There has been no finding by the CCMA or a court within the previous three years that the employer breached the prohibition on unfair discrimination in Chapter 2; and The CCMA has not issued an award against the employer in the previous three years for failing to pay the National Minimum Wage. These amendments will have far-reaching consequences if they are passed into law and potentially some significant unintended consequences. Join us for the Employment Equity Amendments – Interpreting, Planning & Implementing as we unpack these amendments and what they mean for your business.