Employment and Labour Law

“Raising kids is part joy and part guerilla warfare.” (Ed Asner, actor with a great sense of humour!)

A game-changing judgment from our Constitutional Court sets out new rules for parental leave.

The joy of becoming parents, and a father’s leave dilemma

The birth of a couple’s first child presented them with both a bundle of joy and a practical dilemma. Dad wanted to be the baby’s primary caregiver while his wife carried on running her two businesses, so he asked his employer for four months’ parental leave. “Sorry,” said his boss, “the law only allows you ten days”. In the end he had to take six months’ unpaid leave – which came with some unhappy financial and career consequences.

Off to the High Court he went. That Court’s declaration of invalidity of the relevant provisions in the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) and Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) Act has now been confirmed by the Constitutional Court – with some important modifications.

Let’s start with a quick look at how the current wording of the two Acts creates an inherent inequality between parents.

Out with the old: Different rules for mums and dads

In the far off “bad old days”, many expectant mothers had no job security or entitlement to maternity leave. That gradually changed for the better over many years, but even after a general entitlement to maternity leave was introduced it was, as the name suggests, available to women only. Then in 2020 came the brand-new and widely welcomed concept of “parental leave”, which brought fathers (and other non-birth parents) into the fold.

It was ground-breaking at the time but still not perfect, in that while biological birth mothers were entitled to “maternity leave” of at least four consecutive months, fathers (and other non-birth parents) got “parental leave” of only ten consecutive days. Adoptive leave and commissioning (surrogacy) leave was ten weeks for one parent but only ten days for the other. The UIF Act inevitably mirrored these inequalities.

In with the new: Parity for parents

The High Court found these discrepancies to be unconstitutional, and the Constitutional Court has now agreed. It’s given Parliament thirty six months to sort out the invalid provisions (new legislation is reportedly already in the pipeline), and in the interim the following changes apply:

• One parent employed: Where only one parent is employed, or in the case of a single parent, that parent gets the full four consecutive months’ leave. If the parent is an expectant mother, she can start her leave up to 4 weeks pre-birth (or earlier if medically certified). Otherwise, it starts on the day of birth.
• Both parents employed: Where both parents are employed, they get a total of four months and ten days of parental leave: the sum of what used to be the mother’s four months and what used to be the father’s ten days. This total can be shared between them as they agree, taking it consecutively (one after the other) or concurrently (together), or a mix of consecutive and concurrent. But however they split it, each must take their portion of leave in one single sequence of days. If they can’t agree on the leave split, it must be as close as possible to 50/50. Shared leave must be completed within the four-month period.
• Compulsory periods: There are no changes to the compulsory no-work period for the birth mother – a six-week recovery period after birth during which she may not work unless medically cleared. In the event of either a miscarriage during the third trimester, or a stillbirth, the birth mother must get the same six-week recovery period. 
• Adoptive leave and commissioning (surrogacy) leave: The same equal splits now apply to all parents – natural, adoptive and commissioning. A provision limiting adoptive leave to children under two years old was declared invalid and unconstitutional, but remains in place for now, with the Court leaving Parliament to decide on an appropriate age limit. 
• Other “parties to a parental relationship”: Leave in the shared pool applies only to “parties to a parental relationship”, defined as people who have assumed parental rights and responsibilities under the Children’s Act. 
• Notice to employer: Employed parents must still give their employers at least four weeks’ notice (some sections refer to “one month” just to confuse the issue!) of their intention to take leave. If that’s not practical, notice must be given “as soon as reasonably practicable”.  

Are you entitled to paid leave, and what about UIF?

Although you now have extended job security protection, you are still not entitled to paid parental leave unless your employment contract provides for it (common in larger corporates), or if a company policy or a collective agreement provides for it.

Better news is that the UIF allows you to claim for maternity and parental leave benefits, but currently still with restrictions mirroring the BCEA’s. The Court declared the relevant sections of the UIF Act invalid but again left it to Parliament to sort out, so it seems that nothing changes there for now.

An important note for employers

Review all your employment contracts, company policies and procedures to ensure compliance with these new rules. Communicate them to your employees to ensure there are no misunderstandings and no unrealistic expectations – not all the media reports and online articles on this new development are accurate!

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact us for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“There’s no trust, no faith, no honesty in men.” (William Shakespeare, in Romeo and Juliet)

A recent Labour Court decision is a stark reminder to employees that an employment relationship is founded on trust, and that any breach of that trust could justify dismissal.

Pocketing a 50c coin to balance her till

The responsibilities of a bank teller included “balancing cash daily, reporting differences, as well as maintaining effective security controls, including maintaining a high level of honesty, integrity and ethical standards.”

Her clean record over the four years of her employment ended abruptly when a monthly surprise check of the cash balance in her till revealed a discrepancy in the form of a bag of R1 coins totalling R20, unaccounted for and therefore in violation of banking rules and procedures.

The resulting investigation revealed, as recorded on CCTV, the teller’s various failed attempts at balancing her till, which she had ultimately succeeded in doing only by pocketing a 50c coin from the till.

A subsequent disciplinary enquiry found her guilty on charges of misconduct in the form of dishonesty, falsification of balancing records and misappropriation of funds from her till. She referred her dismissal case to the CCMA (Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration), which refused her application.

In finding her dismissal to have been fair, the arbitrator rejected both the teller’s claims that her till discrepancies resulted from her ill health, and her denial of taking the 50c to manipulate the system (the CCTV record was, it seems, crystal clear on that point). The court also remarked on her contradictory statements as to the “miraculous” bag of R1 coins.

Critically, the teller had been trained in her duties and was well aware of what was expected of her in line with the bank’s Code of Ethics. Moreover, the bank’s Disciplinary Code provides that falsification of bank records is a dismissible offence as a destroyer of the employer-employee trust relationship.

Undaunted, the teller took the CCMA’s award on review to the Labour Court, which made short work of confirming her dismissal.

It’s the breach of trust that counts, not the amount involved

As our courts have confirmed many times, the employer-employee relationship requires an employee to act honestly and in good faith. The trust which the employer places in the employee underlies their whole relationship, and any breach of that trust risks dismissal.

Even an apparently minor act of dishonesty can justify dismissal if it has resulted in a breakdown of trust that makes continued employment intolerable. The final decision of whether or not dismissal will be appropriate for a particular act of misconduct will depend on all the circumstances.

4 practical tips for employers

For employers, preparation is key in ensuring that you are able to dismiss a dishonest employee without falling foul of our employment laws. Start with the basics:

1. Your employment contracts and codes are critical: As we saw in this case, the bank’s strictly worded Code of Ethics and Disciplinary Code were central to proving the fairness of the dismissal. Your employment contracts should incorporate reference to zero-tolerance policies that leave employees no wiggle room when it comes to understanding that any act of theft or dishonesty, no matter how minor, will justify dismissal. Incorporate reference also to the monitoring and checking processes you will apply – it was the “surprise monthly till check” that cooked this teller’s goose.

   Every workplace will have its own unique requirements in this regard, so contracts and codes tailored to your circumstances are vital.

2. Training is essential: As we again saw in this case, a deciding factor in the Court’s decision was the fact that the teller had received adequate training in her duties and so couldn’t claim ignorance of the requirements that she balance her till, report discrepancies, act honestly, etc.
3. Proof is key: The CCTV footage of the teller pocking money from her till was critical in proving that she deliberately flouted the rules and stole from her till. Whatever monitoring devices and processes you may have in place (and do remember to ask us how you can use things like CCTV monitoring without being accused of an unfair labour practice!), make sure to collate and preserve it as soon as any incident of misconduct comes to light. You might have to retain it for a long time (nearly four years so far in this case).
4. Your disciplinary process must also be fair: Remember that proving “substantive fairness” (a fair and lawful reason for dismissal) is only one part of the equation. You must also be able to show that all your disciplinary processes are “procedurally fair” (i.e. that a fair process was followed).

As always with our employment laws, the requirements are complex and the costs of getting them wrong are high, so don’t hesitate to ask us for advice and help every step of the way.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact us for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“When cognitive capacities are the focus, the 70s are the new 50s.” (IMF)

Fake news articles suggesting that South Africa was implementing a new standard retirement age policy, supposedly from 30 May this year, recently went viral on social media. Convincingly structured to look realistic (AI’s dark hand there?), the articles suggested that 65 is the new universal standard retirement age for all employees across all sectors.

Complete hogwash. 

What the law actually says

• Age discrimination is “automatically unfair”, and any employer found to be guilty of it by unlawfully forcing an employee to retire early faces a compensation order of up to 24 months’ remuneration (double the normal award for a run-of-the-mill unfair dismissal), re-instatement or re-employment. 
• There is, however, an escape clause there for employers: “A dismissal based on age is fair if the employee has reached the normal or agreed retirement age for persons employed in that capacity.”
• Even where a dismissal itself is fair, you must still follow a fair process in implementing it – more on that below.

It’s an important topic, with increasing numbers of employees wanting to (or needing to) work into their 70s. A recent Labour Court ruling showing those principles in action is well worth taking note of.

The plumber forced to retire at 60

An artisan plumber with 12 years of service had his employment terminated when he turned 60.

He asked the Labour Court to declare his dismissal automatically unfair as other employees had been allowed to work until they were 65. What’s more, he denied ever agreeing to retire at 60.

The employer countered that it had a two-tier retirement policy which obliged employees with more physically demanding jobs (site workers such as artisan plumbers) to retire at 60 whilst supervisory and administrative personnel (such as foremen and office staff) only had to retire at 65. 

On the facts, the Court declared the dismissal to have been fair, finding that the evidence pointed to the employee being subject to a retirement age of 60 because:

• The employer’s retirement policy was in line with the rules of the applicable Building Industry Pension Scheme. 
• Although no signed copy of his full employment contract could be found, the employer did produce a standard annexure to such a contract, confirming retirement at 60 and “probably” signed by him (he denied signing it but agreed the signature looked like his).
• A number of his fellow plumbers had also been retired at 60 (he attended their retirement functions), and other cases of retirement at age 65 cited by him related to employees in the “65 tier” – that is in supervisory or administrative positions.
• Another plumber’s contract was produced, with the retirement provision in place.

Bottom line: the employee hadn’t proved that his retirement at the applicable retirement age of 60 was an automatically unfair dismissal, and the Court held his dismissal to be fair.

How to ensure that an age-related dismissal is fair

First prize is to specify an agreed retirement age in all your employment contracts, ideally from day one. If you want to add a retirement clause later, or to change anything about an existing clause, be sure to do so by negotiation and agreement, not unilaterally. And be sure to keep the original, fully-signed contract safe and accessible (unlike the employer in this case who had to rely on a scan of just the annexure to the contract).

Alternatively, be ready to prove that there is a “normal or agreed retirement age” for employees employed in the same capacity. 

The dismissal must be genuinely based on the employee having reached retirement age and cannot, for example, be a disguised retrenchment or a dismissal for some other reason. 

It’s crucial that you follow a fair process. Open communication, reasonable notice, and applying the rules consistently to all employees could be critical here.

Every case will be different, so ask us for advice specific to your situation. 

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact us for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“The legal principles, as I understand them, do not confer on me the powers of Father Christmas. I cannot rescue the un-rescuable.” (Quoted in the judgment below)

We all want loyal, competent staff who remain motivated to stay with us in the long term, but the reality is that a degree of employee churn is always inevitable. 

Imagine then this scenario – a key employee (someone senior, a specialist, or perhaps even a partner or director) is fired or leaves you. They take with them intimate knowledge of your business. They know all your trade secrets, your pricing processes, your marketing strategies, and all your trade connections. Plus, they’ve built up client relationships and credibility in your industry while employed by you. 

If they now decide to start up their own business in opposition to you, or if they take their insider knowledge to your competitors, you have a real problem. 

That’s why it’s essential to consider, right up front when you’re hiring someone and drawing up their employment contract, whether you need to protect your business from this sort of unfair competition. That’s where the tried-and-tested restraint of trade clause comes into play. It’s as easy as including one in your employment contract, and making sure that your new hire is fully on board with it. Or is it?

The basic requirements for legal validity

As a starting point, our courts are cautious about curbing anyone’s constitutional right to be economically active and to earn a living. 

So, while we are all generally held to the agreements we make, and while restraint clauses have long been recognised in our law as a legitimate way for businesses to protect their interests from unfair competition, our courts are unlikely to enforce restraints unless they are:

• Reasonable: You cannot impose an unreasonable restriction on your former employee’s freedom to trade or to work. Go too wide on time period, geographic area or scope, and your clause could be held wholly or partially void.
• Protective of a legitimate business interest: You must have a real commercial interest in imposing the restraint, you can’t use it just to block competition.
• Not contrary to public policy: There must be no other aspect of public policy weighing against the clause.

Each case will be judged on its own facts and merits, with the court balancing your rights against those of your former employee in a bid to ensure fairness to both of you. 

As a starting point, make sure that your clause isn’t “void for vagueness”, or you could end up in the same position as the employer we discuss below.

Too vague to enforce, and no Father Christmas to the rescue

An employer, providing physiotherapy services to two major hospitals in the Umhlanga area of KwaZulu-Natal, employed a senior physiotherapist in January 2023. Eight months later she resigned.

The restraint of trade clause in her agreement was a particularly terse one. Headed “15. Trade Restriction”, it read simply: “2 year 8km restriction in event of termination / expiry of Contract.”

When the employer tried to enforce this clause, the High Court refused, pointing out that it was “lacking in substance” and contained no indication of:

• A definite commencement date for the two-year period
• What the “8 km restriction” referred to
• What exactly was restricted
• What interests it sought to protect

What’s more, it contained no mention of the two particular private hospitals which the ex-employee was not to practice at. The Court refused the employer’s request to “read in” more wording to the clause to remedy its vagueness and lack of detail, quoting from another High Court decision: “the legal principles, as I understand them, do not confer on me the powers of Father Christmas. I cannot rescue the un-rescuable.”

It also warned against the trend for smaller businesses to cut corners by going the “DIY contract” route: “SMME businesses are reluctant to seek advice from attorneys, and less so to employ attorneys to prepare important legal agreements. This pattern, fuelled undoubtedly by the rising cost of legal charges, often results in unforeseen circumstances by the time the matter reaches a litigious stage”. 

That’s putting it mildly – defective restraint clauses like this one literally aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. A properly drawn clause is essential, and we’re here to help.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact us for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

It’s vital for both employers and employees to understand the practical and legal differences between permanent and fixed term employment arrangements.

What is a fixed term contract?

A fixed term contract is a temporary employment arrangement with a specified start date and an agreed end date. This could be a fixed end date or a reference to a specified task or project reaching completion, or to a specified event. Importantly, you must be able to prove that your employee agreed to the end date.

A standard contract of employment, by contrast, is for an unlimited period and ends only when your employee resigns, or reaches retirement age, or is lawfully dismissed or retrenched by you.

Any employer tempted to misuse a fixed term contract in order to dodge the many legal protections given to a full-time employee should think twice – our courts do not look kindly on attempts to prejudice employees by disguising the true nature of an employment relationship.

The basic requirements

The contract (and any renewal contracts) must be in writing and must state the reasons justifying the stated fixed term.

The protections

The Labour Relations Act (LRA) provides a range of protections to fixed term employees. Let’s address them under two main headings.

Firstly, the “reasonable expectation of renewal” protection that applies to everyone

Simply put, you could face an unfair dismissal claim (with all that that entails) if you give the employee reason to believe that the contract will be renewed or converted to full-time employment.

That’s because – and this applies to all fixed term contracts in that none of the exclusions listed below apply here – the LRA says the termination of a fixed term contract is seen as a “dismissal” if:

• The employee “reasonably expected” you to either renew the fixed term contract on the same or similar terms, or to convert the contract into indefinite employment (again, on the same or similar terms), and you didn’t do so. 

Anything could land you in hot water here, with particular risk areas being things like continual renewal of fixed term contracts without justification, verbal or implied reassurances of renewal, a workplace culture of renewing contracts etc. To be on the safe side, consider giving your employee specific written notice of non-renewal in good time. Every scenario will be different here, so in some instances you may be advised that multiple contract renewals are justified, in others that they aren’t – specific legal advice is essential, and the bottom line is that professionally drawn contracts and clear communication are critical.

Secondly, other protections that apply only to certain employees

These additional protections do not apply in any of these exceptions:

• The employee earns more than the earnings threshold set by the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (currently R261,748.45 per year or R21,812.37 per month).
• You employ less than 10 employees.
• You employ less than 50 employees in a business that is less than two years old (and that hasn’t been formed by dividing or dissolving an existing business).
• The fixed term contract is permitted “by any statute, sectoral determination or collective agreement.”

The three-month limit, and the need for justification 

You can only use a fixed term contract (or successive contracts) for over three months if:

1. The work involved is of limited or definite duration, or
2. You are able to prove a justifiable reason for fixing the contract’s term, with the LRA specifically mentioning situations such as:
   
   • Covering another employee’s absence (on maternity leave perhaps)
   • Addressing a temporary increase in work not expected to last over 12 months
   • Providing work experience to students and new graduates
   • Specific projects of limited or defined duration
   • Seasonal work
   • Positions funded externally for a limited period
   • An employee who has reached retirement age
   This is not an exhaustive list so you may well have other justifiable reasons, such as perhaps needing to establish the viability of a new venture, a new branch, or a new position before committing to long-term employment.

Watch out here! If you employ someone on a fixed term contract for more than three months without complying with the above, the contract is automatically deemed to be a full employment contract of unlimited duration.

Other things to watch

• Equal treatment after three months: Even if you have justification for exceeding the three-month limit, you must then treat the employee no less favourably than a permanent employee in the same position, unless again you have justification for different treatment.
• Right to apply for vacancies: Fixed term employees must have the same access to apply for vacancies as permanent employees.
• Retrenchment pay if a project exceeds 24 months: Any project-specific fixed term employee who is employed for over 24 months must, when the contract ends, be paid a week’s remuneration for every completed year of the contract or offered other employment (with you or another employer) on the same or similar terms.

A properly drawn employment agreement that both protects your interests and complies with the law is essential – and we’re standing by to help you.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact us for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

From 1 April 2025, the earnings threshold under the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) will increase, impacting not only the BCEA but also employee protections under the Labour Relations Act (LRA) and Employment Equity Act (EEA). 

Broadly speaking, employees earning less than the threshold amount are entitled to stronger labour protections.

The new threshold 

The threshold rises by only 2.9% this year, increasing from R254,371.67 per year (R21,197.64 per month) to R261,748.45 per year (R21,812.37 per month).

What counts as “Earnings”?

“Earnings” (for this purpose only) means “the regular annual remuneration before deductions, i.e. income tax, pension, medical and similar payments but excluding similar payments (contributions) made by the employer in respect of the employee: Provided that subsistence and transport allowances received, achievement awards and payments for overtime worked shall not be regarded as remuneration”.

The impact on employee protections 

• BCEA: Employees earning above the new threshold aren’t entitled to statutory protections for working hours, overtime pay, Sunday, public holiday and night work, daily and weekly rest periods and meal intervals. 
• LRA: Those earning below the threshold gain stronger protections:
  
  • If working for a client via a labour broker for more than three months, they are deemed employees of the client – unless they really are performing a temporary service. 
  • Fixed-term contracts exceeding three months are presumed indefinite unless the employer has a justifiable reason for fixing the term of the contract. 
• EEA: Employees earning above the threshold can only take unfair discrimination disputes (except sexual harassment cases) to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) if both parties agree. Otherwise, they must approach the Labour Court.

Exceptions to the BCEA protections

Some employees have limited BCEA protection regardless of their earnings, including:

• Senior managerial employees – defined as “an employee who has the authority to hire, discipline and dismiss employees and to represent the employer internally and externally”.
• Sales staff who travel to customers and set their own work hours.
• Employees working less than 24 hours a month.

Please ask us for specific advice if you need it. This article is merely an overview of a complex topic with many pitfalls for the unwary.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact us for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

The National Minimum Wage (NMW) for each “ordinary hour worked” has been increased from 1 March 2025 by 4.4% from R27,58 per hour to R28,79 per hour. 

Domestic workers: Assuming a work month of 22 days x 8 hours per day, R28,79 per hour equates to R230,32 per day or R5067,04 per month. Of course, this is just a bare legal minimum: the Living Wage calculator will help you check whether you are actually paying your domestic worker enough to cover a household’s “minimal need” (adjust the “Assumptions” in the calculator to ensure that the figures used are up-to-date).

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact us for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“Only in our dreams are we free; the rest of the time we need wages.” (Terry Pratchett)

Retrenching employees can be an expensive business. You’ll have to pay each employee a minimum of one week’s pay for each completed year of ongoing service, and that total liability can add up alarmingly.

A recent Labour Court ruling has however set out clear guidelines for avoiding that cost by arranging alternative employment for your retrenched employees.

A lost cleaning contract and a raft of retrenchments

A contract cleaning services company, fearing it would lose a particular contract in an upcoming tender process, warned all staff employed at the factory in question that they could face retrenchment.

Sure enough, the tender went to a competitor. The company was able to absorb 130 employees into other positions and locations, but 41 had to be retrenched. Eleven of them were given severance pay, but the employer declined to pay anything to the 30 who accepted alternative employment. 

The employees were having none of that, and approached the CCMA (Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration). The CCMA awarded them both retrenchment pay and notice pay.

The employer then took the matter to the Labour Court, which set aside those awards. So, the employer is off the hook on both counts – and employers and employees should understand the Court’s reasoning for that decision.

Having your cake, and eating it

• The BCEA (Basic Conditions of Employment Act) provides that employees cannot demand severance pay if they are offered alternative employment and unreasonably reject it. As the Labour Court here put it, “the raison d’être of [severance pay] is to compensate an employee who has been dismissed for operational requirements, through no fault of her own, to be paid compensation for her loss of employment. However, the legislature considered that an employee who unreasonably refuses an offer of alternative employment is not without blame. She should therefore shoulder the loss of employment without any compensation.” (Emphasis added)
  
• Equally, “where an employee accepts alternative employment, arranged by the employer, she forfeits her right to receive severance pay.” Being paid both severance pay and a salary is a double benefit not intended by the BCEA.

Employers: Two practical steps to avoid liability 

Employers should take two lessons from this ruling:

1. Don’t just “sit on your hands watching the world go by”! As this Court put it, employers are incentivised to ensure that their employees get another job. Which is exactly what the cleaning company did here: it “did not just sit on [its] hands and impassively watch the world go by,” it managed to find alternative employment for 30 employees. It was extremely pro-active in this regard, meeting with the new employer, giving it all the information it needed, and allowing employees paid time off to attend interviews at a venue which it arranged. 
   
2. Act early and urgently. This employer avoided the claim for notice pay by giving over four weeks’ notice of termination. What’s more, it engaged in the consultation process and issued notice of retrenchment circulars at the earliest opportunity, then acted “as a matter of some urgency” to collaborate with the new employer in arranging new job offers.   

Another point to consider

It’s worth noting perhaps that the Court also mentioned in passing (“obiter dicta”) that even if an employee were to find her own new employment “through her own efforts and without the aid of her retrenching employer” she “needs no soft cushion of severance pay to land on” and would have to justify any such claim. 

Still, on the “better safe than sorry” principle, employers should not take chances here – rather be pro-active in arranging alternative employment as soon as you can.  

A final thought for employees

Before you decide to reject any offer of alternate employment bear in mind that, as this court confirmed, it will be up to you to prove your entitlement to severance and/or notice pay – it’s not automatic!

Whether you’re an employer planning to retrench staff, or an employee facing an impending retrenchment, getting the best legal advice is key.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact us for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“One of the hallmarks of an enlightened egalitarian society is the right to freedom of religion.” (Extract from judgment below)

Our courts do not tolerate unfair discrimination in the workplace, and employers need to tread particularly carefully when it comes to the concept of “automatically unfair discrimination”. Get that one wrong and you could be penalised with an order to pay your employee two years of earnings as compensation.

What is “automatically unfair discrimination”?

A dismissal is automatically unfair if based on any “arbitrary ground”, including, but not limited to, a person’s race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, family responsibility, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, HIV status, conscience, belief, political opinion, culture, language or birth (aspects relevant to this case have been highlighted).

However, “a dismissal may be fair if the reason for dismissal is based on an inherent requirement of the particular job” (emphasis added).

Let’s discuss these concepts with reference to a recent Labour Appeal Court (LAC) case.

“Sorry, I can’t work on the Sabbath”

Employed as a regional marketing manager by an international hospitality company, an employee signed a standard employment contract which, after specifying “normal hours of work” as being 8.30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Mondays to Fridays, with an hour for lunch, also provided for circumstances in which he could be required to work outside those hours.

Two months after starting work, the employee dropped what presumably came as something of a bombshell to his bosses. He said that as a Seventh Day Adventist, his religious beliefs precluded him from travelling or attending events on the Sabbath (i.e. from sunset on Friday until sunset on Saturday). He hadn’t made any mention of this in his job interviews, nor had he challenged the wording of his contract as to the required work hours.

Initially his line manager was able to accommodate him by covering for him on the problem days (travelling, it seems, to Kenya, Mozambique and Zambia as well as locally), but after 16 months she could not continue. He was offered an alternative position which didn’t require him to work on the Sabbath, but that came with a 45% pay cut.

The manager declined this offer, and he was dismissed after a disability enquiry. He challenged his dismissal, and the Labour Court, after finding it to have been automatically unfair, ordered his reinstatement.

His employer appealed this judgment to the LAC, which overturned that ruling and held that the dismissal was in fact fair.

Lessons to learn, points to ponder

The reasoning and the legal principles that underpinned the employer’s success in this case provide a useful blueprint for both employers and employees who might find themselves in a similar situation. Let’s address them point by point:

• Job interviews: It no doubt counted against the employee that he hadn’t mentioned the limitations on his working hours in his interviews, nor had he queried the wording of his employment contract. As a job applicant, be clear about any constraints on your work availability outside of normal hours, and query anything in your contract that might conflict with them. As an employer, make it an integral part of your interview process to check that the applicant understands your requirements as to both normal and additional work hours, and agrees to them.
• Employment contracts: The employer’s success in the LAC would not have been quite as easily won if its contract hadn’t clearly stated that the manager “will be required to work longer hours from time to time without additional compensation” (emphasis added). A “job flexibility requirement clause” also helped it when it came to the offer of an alternative position.
• Automatically unfair discrimination: There are two questions here. Was there discrimination? And if so, was it based on an arbitrary ground such as the employee’s religious beliefs? The employer in this case conceded on both aspects.
• “An inherent requirement of the job”: It was then for the employer to convince the court that the discrimination was permissible because the job requirement in question is “inherent or inescapable in the performance of the job”. Such a requirement has to be “rationally connected to the performance of the job”, “adopted in a genuine and good faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfilment of a legitimate work-related purpose” and “reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of that purpose.” The employer had no problem in proving all that. But that wasn’t the end of it…
• Accommodating the employee: As an employer, you can’t simply say “tough luck, your religious beliefs mean you can’t do the job as per its inherent requirements so off you go.” You must prove “that it is impossible [for you] to accommodate the individual employee without imposing undue hardship or insurmountable operational difficulty.” It was on this leg that the employer nearly came unstuck – while two of the judges agreed that it had passed this test, the third judge disagreed. If the decision had gone against it, the employer would have been penalised with a compensatory order of 24 months’ earnings.

Bottom line here is that you must act reasonably and in context in trying to enable an employee to continue in employment.

Our employment laws are complex and the penalties for getting them wrong are severe – so don’t hesitate to ask us for help if you’re in any doubt.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact us for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews