by Ivan Israelstam | Aug 3, 2015 | CCMA, Labour Law, Labour Law for Employers, Retrenchments
Some time ago asked by an employer to assist with preparing for a Labour Court review case. The employer had dismissed the employee for theft but the CCMA had forced the employer to reinstate him. I was puzzled by the CCMA’s decision because, on discussing the case...
by Ivan Israelstam | May 26, 2015 | CCMA, Corporate, Employees, Labour Law
The Code of Good Practice: Dismissal (the Code) in Schedule 8 of the Labour Relations Act (LRA) has been, in effect, provided for in section 188 (2) in Chapter 8 of the LRA. This chapter provides for this Code as part of its purpose of ensuring that employers accede...
by Ivan Israelstam | May 18, 2015 | Employees, Labour Law
The new section 6(4) of the Equity Act (EEA) effective from 1 August 2014 classifies as unfair discrimination differing terms and conditions of employment where: this difference is based on the grounds for unfair discrimination listed in the EEA and the employees...
by Ivan Israelstam | May 11, 2015 | Employees, Labour Law, Labour Law for Employers
Labour law, born from South Africa’s Constitution, is there primarily to protect employees. Central to this purpose is the principle that the jobs of employees must be protected. Labour law very reluctantly allows employers to terminate the employment of workers but...
by Ivan Israelstam | May 7, 2015 | Corporate, Employees, Labour Law, Labour Law for Employers
South African labour legislation has been written to protect employees to the detriment of employers. This is despite the fact that section 9(1) of the Bill of Rights contained in the Constitution of South Africa provides that “Everyone is equal before the law and has...
by Ivan Israelstam | Apr 28, 2015 | Corporate, Employees, Labour Law, Labour Law for Employers
I often receive calls from angry employers who, having been certain of success at arbitration, have received notice that they have lost the case. The reasons that this might happen include amongst others: The case of the employer concerned was weak without him/her...
