Goldberg Attorneys Inc is a boutique law firm specialising in Labour Law and in particular in Labour Court matters and arbitrations

About Our Law Firm

Andrew Goldberg
CEO / Director

20 years experience in Labour Law

Introduction to Goldberg Attorneys
Andrew Goldberg on Rights & Recourse

Goldberg Attorneys Inc is a boutique law firm specialising in Labour Law and in particular in Labour Court matters and appearances. We open cases, do referrals, drafting of pleadings including complex review applications, statements of case, rescissions, exceptions, opinions, heads of argument, review applications, urgent applications; joinders / legal representation; Opposing review applications on a minimal fee basis; Contempt applications, Drafting Statements of Claim concerning collective retrenchments, strikes and discrimination. Judge’s directives on retrenchments, strikes and racism. Drafting of bills of cost and attending taxation, arbitration, Labour Appeal Court - Appeals, submissions, heads of arguments and arguing before Court. We also do CCMA arbitrations and disciplinary hearings as well as human resources policies and industrial relations. Chairing of disciplinary hearings. We will attend at your offices, or if you want, we can hold the disciplinary hearings at our offices.

Call on us to resolve your problems. We guarantee to remove the impediments obstructing your production!

Goldberg Attorneys Inc is a labour law boutique firm conveniently situated in the same building that houses the LABOUR COURT, namely Arbour Square, headed up by Andrew Goldberg (20 years’ experience in Labour Law). 

CONTACT US NOW!  WE WILL WIN YOUR CASE!

Company Slogan: Masters in Labour Law

Company Vision: To be the best Labour Lawyers in South Africa

Company Values: Integrity, honesty, reliability and justice. To be open to change and to adapt to change.

Mission Statement: Do it right, and do it now!

Goldberg Attorneys Inc. now also host disciplinary hearings at our offices in Braamfontein with an appointed independent chairperson and interpreter. Please book in advance with Lethu to secure a date and time.

Mr Goldberg, the owner, has the most appearances and reported cases of any single Labour Attorney at the Labour Court. Mr Goldberg is a well-spoken, trustworthy, confident individual and runs cases from start to finish, including urgent interdicts and complex matters all by himself. Mr Goldberg is also a well-known and respected attorney at the Labour Court with over 1000 appearances at Labour Court and 20 at Labour Appeal Court.

 

Andrew Goldberg
CEO / Director

andrew@goldbergs.co.za

Boteng Maluke
2nd year Candidate Attorney

info@goldbergs.co.za

Thabang Ndhlalane
Attorney

admin@goldbergs.co.za

Lethu Mlotshwa
2nd year Candidate Attorney

reception@goldbergs.co.za

Current topics, case law and contributions

Recent Labour Court cases and resources
Labour Court logo

Case Study 1

In the matter of Mthimkhulu v Standard Bank of South Africa in the Labour Court, the Judge was faced with the issue of immediate resignation in the face of receiving a disciplinary sanction. An employee, who was an aspirant advocate, having already been found guilty of serious acts of misconduct had immediately resigned to avoid facing the ultimate sanction of dismissal. Judge Moshoana found that whereas a resignation was a unilateral act where this repudiation breached the very fabric of the employment relationship, the employer could keep the contract alive and pronounce the sanction; all that was left was the sanction. Faced with immediate resignation, an employer can sue the employee for damages or seek specific performance.

____________________________________

Case study 2

Anxiety, job stress and depression have become recognised work illnesses.  The current pressures and stress related to Covid-19 and changing work conditions has exacerbated this situation.  Companies will need to learn how to deal with mental stress. In the case of Legal Aid South Africa v Jansen [2020] JOL 47984 (LAC), the Labour Appeal Court (“the LAC”)  had to consider whether the employee’s (“Jansen”) dismissal was automatically unfair on account of his depression, which was common cause (agreed upon).

An act of insolence took place when the Company sought to inquire about his repetitive absenteeism. Jansen turned his back on his senior when he inquired about the absenteeism situation.

Jansen was charged with inter alia unauthorised absence from the workplace and insolence and was subsequently dismissed. Jansen thereafter referred a dispute to the CCMA wherein he claimed that he had been discriminated against because of his depression. The matter had to be referred to the Labour Court as Jansen was setting out that his dismissal was automatically unfair.

In the Labour Court, Jansen framed his claim as an automatically unfair dismissal. 

After the Labour Court ruled that the employer, Legal Aid South Africa, (“Legal Aid”) was required to start with the leading of evidence Legal Aid decided to close its case as it believed the ruling to be incorrect. At the close of Jansen’s case, Legal Aid applied for absolution of the instance, but it was denied. The Labour Court decided that Legal Aid was guilty of an automatically unfair dismissal in that it had failed to lead any evidence. The Labour Court found that the automatically unfair dismissal also amounted to unfair discrimination. Legal Aid then appealed the matter to the LAC.

The LAC reconsidered the issue and set out the factors that were necessary to prove an automatically unfair dismissal. The LAC set out that before anything, there was a need to prove that the depression was as a result of the work environment as such factual causation had to be proven. Next was to prove legal causation, that is was the misconduct the most proximate cause of the dismissal.

The LAC found that because Jansen failed to deny that he was guilty of the acts of misconduct for which he was ultimately dismissed and that he had failed to prove that the most proximate cause of the misconduct was his depression and that he was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or act in accordance with an appreciation of wrongfulness that there was no wrongfulness on behalf of the Legal Aid. Jansen was not subjected to differential treatment and. In contrast, Jansen suffered from depression; he failed to prove that the acts of misconduct engaged in were either directly caused by his depression or that he was dismissed as a direct result of his depression. Accordingly, the LAC found that the most proximate cause of Jansen’s dismissal was his misconduct and not his depression.

Comment: This case illustrates that employees cannot rely on depression to escape the consequences of their actions that constitute misconduct, but it also shows that employers have a duty to deal with depression in a sympathetic manner and to consider sanctions which reflect that approach.

Contact details of the Labour Court

(courtesy of the Labour Court)

Registrars:

JOHANNESBURG                                                                          

Ms F. N. Ntuli (Registrar of the Labour Court: Johannesburg)

Physical address: 86 Juta Street, Arbour Square Building, 6th and 7th Floors, corner Juta and Melle Streets, Braamfontein 2001
Postal Address: Private Bag X 52, Braamfontein, 2017
Tel: 011 359 5760 Fax: 011 403 9327
E-mail:FNtuli@judiciary.org.za

DURBAN

Mr T Vilakazi   

Physical Address: LIBERTY LIFE HOUSE, 1st Floor, 269 Anton Lembede Street, Durban (as from 18 July 2011)
Postal Address: Private Bag X54370, Durban, 4000
GPS: E 31.0171; S -29.86052
Tel:  031 301 0104/ 0106/ 0111 or 031 492 6184 (Direct Line +27 31 492 6202), Fax: 031 301 0145    
E-mail: tvilakazi@judiciary.org.za

CAPE TOWN                                                                        

GENERAL ENQUIRIES:
Physical Address: Twinell House, 1st Floor, 113 Loop Street, Cape Town, 8001
Postal Address: PO Box 15502, Vlaeberg, 8018
GPS: E 18.41776; S -33.9221

Tel: 021 424 9035
Fax no: 021 424 9059
E-mail: labourcourtcapetown@judiciary.org.za

REGISTRAR:
Farzaana Ismail     
Tel: 021 424 9035 Fax: 021 424 9059
E-mail: fismail@judiciary.org.za

COURT MANAGER:
Glenville Farmer
Physical address: 113 Loop street, Twinell House, Cape Town 8000
Postal Address: P.O.Box 15502, Vlaeberg, Cape Town 8018
Tel: 021 424 9035
Fax no: 021 424 9059
E-mail: gfarmer@judiciary.org.za

TAXING MASTER:
Roscoe Wesso
Tel: 021 424 9035
Fax no: 021 424 9059
E-mail: rafwesso@judiciary.org.za

PORT ELIZABETH

Ms S Gerber

Physical Address: Bird street 2, Central Port Elizabeth, Port Elizabeth, 6001
Postal Address: Private Bag X6004, Port Elizabeth, 6000
GPS: E 25.6179; S -33.9573
Tel: Reception 041 502 6633 or 041 502 6600
Fax: 041 585 9860 / 086 507 1456
E-mail: SGerber@judiciary.org.za

LIBRARIAN: 
Mr G Malatji (Librarian)
Tel: 011 359 5745 
 E-mail: GMalatji@judiciary.org.za

TAXING MASTER:
Ms N Molefe
Tel: 011 359 5773
Email: labourcourttax@judiciary.org.za / nmolefe@judiciary.org.za

Judgments of the Labour Court

August 2020

September 2020

 

Older cases in Pdf

All judgments are in pdf PDF format and require Acrobat Reader to open. (*) Indicates correction to Judgment. (#) Indicates the Judgment is of interest to other Judges.

Delivered Citation Court
2018 12 28 Maredi Ramakgahlela Minah & Elias Motswaledi Local Municipality (J 4519/2018) JHB
2018 12 28 Capitec Bank v D Nhlapo (D860/2017) DBN
2018 12 27 PRASA V CCMA and others (C1230/2018) CT
2018 12 20 Telkom v Gcaba (D1174-17) DBN
2018 12 14 Jurgens Stephanus Bekker T/A Jurgens Bekker Attorneys V Carien Van Greunen and another (J 4062-18) JHB
2018 12 13 AMCU and another v Murray Roberts and others (JR729-16) JHB
2018 12 13 Schloemann v GoldStone Resources (C 658-16) CT
2018 12 10 N P Zulu v Eskom Rotek Industries (SOC) LTD (JS 154-2018) JHB
2018 12 10 J & L Lining (Pty) Ltd V National Union Of Metalworkers of South Africa and another (J3424-18) JHB
2018 12 07 DIS-CHEM Pharmacies Ltd V Solly Malema and others (J 4124-18) jhb 7dec JHB
2018 12 05 Sibanye Gold Limited T/A Sibanye Stillwater v Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (J4390-18) JHB
2018 11 29 Telkom SOC Ltd v Mashaba (J3734-18) JHB
2018 11 28 Sibusiso Xaba and Others v IG Tooling and Light Engineering (JR 200-16) JHB
2018 11 21 Auto Industrial Group v CCMA (PR 03-18) PE
2018 11 19 Dr RCW Walsh v SG Eastern Cape Department of Health (PR 242-17) PE
2018 11 15 Solidarity v SAPS and others (J3750-18) JHB
2018 11 06 Mfano Philemon V CCMA (D 1724-18) DBN
2018 11 06 Municipal and Allied Trade Workers Union V Saldanha Municipality (C 671-18) CT

 

Recent Labour Appeal Court Cases
Labour Court logo

Recent Case Law

Case study 1

David Victor & 200 Others v Chep South Africa (Pty) Ltd - Heard: 03 September 2020; decision handed down 16 September 2020

A vital decision hot off the press – In a unanimous decision, the Appeal Court found that it is the duty of the person deciding the matter (the arbitrator) to look at the true situation and the relationships between the entities in deciding whether a company is or is not a TES. Next, the arbitrator must assess whether the deeming provision applies and if applies, this makes the employees of the contractor ALSO employees of the Company, which the Contractor has contracted to. In this matter, the Court looked at the actual contract between the Company and the Contractor and decided that because the company has in made itself to be not only selling and supplying pallets but also producing them whereas it was actually the contractor that was producing the pallets; the Compay was only selling the pallets; and because the Company controlled the actual production of the pallets which were being produced by the contractor as well as regulating the production that the true relationship was one of a TES and as such the employees of the Contractor were deemed to be (which means they are) the employees of the Company. [Should you want a copy of this Judgment email andrew@goldbergs.co.za]

In the matter of WBHO Construction (Pty) Ltd v Hlatshwayo N.O and Others (29 May 2020), the LAC considered the issue of mob violence. The LAC found that no court could condone mob violence and reversed the Labour Court’s finding of reinstatement to one of dismissal. The LAC agreed with the Labour Court that it is inappropriate to issue instructions through a shopsteward. To quote the essential parts of the Judgment:[36]... In order to succeed with a reasonableness review, the company must go further and establish that, if the Commissioner had found the individual respondents guilty as he ought to have, he could not reasonably have avoided finding that the sanction of dismissal was fair and appropriate. [38] The examination of a Commissioner’s reasons to determine whether a distorting effect on the outcome has ensued to produce an outcome that no reasonable arbitrator could have reached is a delicate exercise. It is plain that the Labour Court appreciated this dimension. Under what circumstances is it proper for a Court of Appeal to disturb such findings of a Review Court? There must be a margin of toleration for the evaluations of the court a quo. Thus, in my view, it is proper to undo such findings only when clearly wrong. This is an outcome which can plainly be demonstrated when the Court of Appeal can point to errors of fact. In second-guessing evaluative conclusions, this is less simply demonstrable. In my view, that threshold is breached when the conclusion reached by the Review Court is untenable. [56] The Courts have repeatedly held that the resort to mob-power to ventilate grievances is utterly unacceptable. Only a zero-tolerance stance by the courts can bring such conduct to an end.”

[Should you want a copy of this Judgment email andrew@goldbergs.co.za]

Case Study 2

Case study 2

Anxiety, job stress and depression have become recognised work illnesses.  The current pressures and stress related to Covid-19 and changing work conditions has exacerbated this situation.  Companies will need to learn how to deal with mental stress. In the case of Legal Aid South Africa v Jansen [2020] JOL 47984 (LAC), the Labour Appeal Court (“the LAC”)  had to consider whether the employee’s (“Jansen”) dismissal was automatically unfair on account of his depression, which was common cause (agreed upon).

An act of insolence took place when the Company sought to inquire about his repetitive absenteeism. Jansen turned his back on his senior when he inquired about the absenteeism situation.

Jansen was charged with inter alia unauthorised absence from the workplace and insolence and was subsequently dismissed. Jansen thereafter referred a dispute to the CCMA wherein he claimed that he had been discriminated against because of his depression. The matter had to be referred to the Labour Court as Jansen was setting out that his dismissal was automatically unfair.

In the Labour Court, Jansen framed his claim as an automatically unfair dismissal. 

After the Labour Court ruled that the employer, Legal Aid South Africa, (“Legal Aid”) was required to start with the leading of evidence Legal Aid decided to close its case as it believed the ruling to be incorrect. At the close of Jansen’s case, Legal Aid applied for absolution of the instance, but it was denied. The Labour Court decided that Legal Aid was guilty of an automatically unfair dismissal in that it had failed to lead any evidence. The Labour Court found that the automatically unfair dismissal also amounted to unfair discrimination. Legal Aid then appealed the matter to the LAC.

The LAC reconsidered the issue and set out the factors that were necessary to prove an automatically unfair dismissal. The LAC set out that before anything, there was a need to prove that the depression was as a result of the work environment as such factual causation had to be proven. Next was to prove legal causation, that is was the misconduct the most proximate cause of the dismissal.

The LAC found that because Jansen failed to deny that he was guilty of the acts of misconduct for which he was ultimately dismissed and that he had failed to prove that the most proximate cause of the misconduct was his depression and that he was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or act in accordance with an appreciation of wrongfulness that there was no wrongfulness on behalf of the Legal Aid. Jansen was not subjected to differential treatment and. In contrast, Jansen suffered from depression; he failed to prove that the acts of misconduct engaged in were either directly caused by his depression or that he was dismissed as a direct result of his depression. Accordingly, the LAC found that the most proximate cause of Jansen’s dismissal was his misconduct and not his depression.

Comment: This case illustrates that employees cannot rely on depression to escape the consequences of their actions that constitute misconduct, but it also shows that employers have a duty to deal with depression in a sympathetic manner and to consider sanctions which reflect that approach.

LABOUR AND LABOUR APPEAL COURT: NATIONAL

Mr C T Phophi (Acting Court Manager)

Physical address: 86 Juta Street, Arbour Square Building, 6th and 7th Floors, corner Juta and Melle Streets, Braamfontein 2001

Postal Address: Private Bag X 52, Braamfontein, 2017

Operating hours 08:00 to 15:00 Mondays to Fridays

Tel:       Switchboard: (011) 359 5700,                                 
Direct:   (011) 359 5766,
Fax no: (011) 403 9325
E-mail: cphophi@judiciary.org.za

Secretary:  Vacant

REGISTRAR LABOUR APPEAL COURT
Mr CT Phophi
Tel: 011 359 5766
Fax: 086 644 7411
E-mail: cphophi@judiciary.org.za

GENERAL ENQUIRIES:
Mr G Ditshane (Legal Admin Officer)
Tel: (011) 359 5759, Fax: (011) 403 9327
E-mail: gditshane@judiciary.org.za

COURT MANAGER (ACTING):
Mr C T Phophi
Physical address: 86 Juta Street, Arbour Square Building, 6th and 7th Floors, corner Juta and Melle Streets, Braamfontein 2001
Postal Address: Private Bag X 52, Braamfontein, 2017
Tel:         Switchboard: (011) 359 5700,
Direct:    (011) 359 5766, Fax no:  (011) 403 9325 / 086 644 7411 
E-mail: cphophi@judiciary.org.za

LIBRARIAN: 
Mr G Malatji (Librarian)
Tel: 011 359 5745 
 E-mail: GMalatji@judiciary.org.za

TAXING MASTER:
Ms N Molefe
Tel: 011 359 5773
Email: labourcourttax@judiciary.org.za / nmolefe@judiciary.org.za

Labour Appeal Court - Judgments 2020 Back

All judgments are in pdf PDF format and require Acrobat Reader to open.

Delivered Citation Court
2020 05 29 WBHO Construction (Pty) Ltd v Themba Hlatshwayo N.O. and others (JA 66-18) JHB
2020 05 28 Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries v Teto and others (CA8/2019) CT
2020 05 28 Zixolislle Feni v Commissioner for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (JA30-19) JHB
2020 05 28 Municipal and Allied Trade Union of South Africa (MATUSA) v Central Karoo District Municipality and Others (CA 6-19) CT

 

Recent Constitutional Cases
https://www.concourt.org.za/index.php/127-judgments/234-september-and-others-v-cmi-business-enterprises-cc-cct279-16#:~:text=On%20appeal%2C%20the%20Labour%20Appeal,transpired%20during%20the%20conciliation%20proceedings.&text=This%20required%20the%20Constitutional%20Court,evidence%20led%20at%20conciliation%20proceedings.

Evidence as to whether the CCMA had conciliated the true dispute and whether evidence as to what was said at conciliation is admissible.

In a dissenting judgment, Zondo DCJ found that the appeal should be dismissed in that the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to decide on a constructive dismissal matter and further that only a discrimination issue was referred and as such the Labour Court was bound to consider the issue that was referred to and dealt with at conciliation.

He pointed out that a well-established principle of the LRA is that disputes must be referred to a conciliation process before they can be adjudicated or arbitrated. As such, the Labour Court had erred in adjudicating the dispute. The applicants had never even alleged that they had resigned which is a core basis to allege constructive dismissal. 

Comment - here the Constitutional Court went too far in finding that constructive dismissal could be dealt with by the Labour Court, this is, more so, the case, where the matter was not even referred to conciliation as such.

RECENT HEARINGS

  •  
Labour Court Resources and Directives

Here are the Forms and Directives of the Labour Court

(courtesy of the Labour Court)

FORMS OF THE LABOUR COURT

All forms are in pdf PDF format and require Acrobat Reader to open and complete.

  1. Form 1: Application for a case number

  2. Form 2: Statement of case (Rule 6)

  3. Form 3: Subpoena

  4. Form 4: Notice of Application (Form 4 added by GN R961 of 11 July 1997)

  5. Form "A": Application for Judgment By Default (Consolidated Practice Directive 2010)
  • Terms and Recesses for the Labour Appeal Court & Labour Court
  •  
  • DIRECTIVES OF THE LABOUR COURT
  •  
  • During the COVID period commencing 26 March 2020, the Labour Court has issued three directives - these are available on the Labour Court website.
CCMA cases and directives

If in the referral to conciliation/ Arbitration the dismissed employee sets out that he seeks compensation, and the issue of relief is not mentioned at Arbitration, then the Commissioner cannot grant anything but compensation.[1]

[1] See the case of G4 Security Services SA (Pty) Ltd v Edwards NO and Others (C 942/2008) [2011] ZALCCT 48 (24 March 2011) contra the case of National Health Laboratory Services v Ndileka Patience Dubeni and Others; heard: 11 November 2014; Case No: P 373/12; delivered: 9 September 2015.

Can a settlement agreement be reviewed?

In Cindi v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others[1], it was set out that:

 

“… The settlement agreement is not her decision, it is a recording of the parties' consensus over the manner in which they agree to settle their differences. The role of the commissioner in that settlement agreement was through conciliation to procure an offer from the company that would ultimately be acceptable to the applicants. The final decision to conclude the agreement lay solely in the respective party's hands. They had to decide of their own volition whether to accept or reject the offers made and put through the office of the commissioner.

 In my view, the third respondent is correct in its contention that the remedy in challenging the agreement that came into existence due to the alleged undue influence by the Commissioner, lies in the common law principles of contract.

In Lahee Construction CC v Nkomo and Others[2] it was set out that: 

“[22]   It is trite that a party that seeks to avoid the application and enforcement of a settlement agreement (which constitutes a contract) allegedly entered into involuntarily by reason of undue influence bears the onus of proving on a preponderance of probabilities, that it did not enter into the agreement voluntarily[3]

 

[23]    To the extent that the Applicant chose to bring this application by way of motion proceedings notwithstanding the foreseen disputed facts, …..

 

[28]    More astonishing with the allegations is that the Commissioner had placed the Applicant’s representatives under duress, induced fear in them, and recorded the terms of the settlement agreement without confirming those terms with them. In regards to whether the Applicant’s representatives had concluded and signed the settlement agreement as a consequence of duress and fear induced in them, it has been stated in Gebenga-Oluwatoye v Reckitt Benckiser South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another[4] that;

 

“A contract may be vitiated by duress where “intimidation or improper pressure renders the consent of the party subjected to duress no true consent”. Compulsion may be exercised by way of physical force, or indirectly, by way of a threat of harm. In order to obtain an order setting aside a contract on the grounds of duress, actual violence or reasonable fear must be shown. The fear must be caused by the threat of some “considerable evil” to the person concerned, or to his, or her, family. The threat or intimidation must be unlawful, or contra bonos mores and the moral pressure used must have caused damage. The burden of proving the existence of duress rests on the party raising it.” (Authorities omitted)

[1] (JR 2610/13) [2015] ZALCJHB 236; [2015] 12 BLLR 1207 (LC); (2015) 36 ILJ 3080 (LC) (4 August 2015).

[2] (J2178/13) [2016] ZALCJHB 150 (12 April 2016).

[3] See Gebenga-Oluwatoye v Reckitt Benckiser South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another (JA95/2014) [2016] ZALAC 4 (3 February 2016) at para [15].

[4] At para [15].

Contact details for the CCMA

CCMA Johannesburg

CCMA House, 127 Fox Street (Cnr. Eloff), Johannesburg, 2001

Private Bag X96, Marshalltown, 2107
Tel: 011-220-5000
Fax: 011-220-5101/02/03/04/05/0861-392-262
Email: johannesburg@ccma.org.za

Call Centre: 011-220-5080

CCMA National Office             

Harrison Street, Johannesburg 2001

  • Phone :(011) 377-6650/ (011) 377-6600
  • Fax :(011) 834-7351
  • Email:info@ccma.org.za
Current articles by contributors

25 November 2020

Emerging from Telework 

At the start of 2020, the work-from-home initiative received a huge push from covid-19. Thanks to dynamic technologies, it is no longer necessary to be present in the company office to be a productive team member. Management has embraced that certain work can be undertaken effectively from a remote location.

On a global scale, the latest controversy in remote work has seen some employers considering adjusting salaries to be aligned with the cost of labour in a particular location, rolled out to their employees who want to work remotely. This complexity has arisen for employees deciding to relocate from expensive cities like New York to more affordable parts of the county, which has prompted employers to consider paying them less. 

In Germany, Deutsche Bank is proposing that people choosing to work from home rather than in an office should be taxed 5% of their salary, with the tax used to subsidise elementary workers who cannot do their work remotely.

Here in South Africa, the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) requires an employer to provide an employee with the necessary tools which can include the Internet, data and stationery. If an employer reimburses certain costs like data, they may require proof of usage for business purposes. The employer is not required to provide staff with a subsidy for refreshments, cleaning materials or telephones. However, expenses such as rental or bond interest may be claimed from the South African Revenue Service (SARS). While SARS does make provision for home expenses, the employee must spend more than 50% of their working hours working from home and must have done so for a minimum period of six months of the tax year. The home office should be an exclusive workspace fitted with the relevant tools, not the dining room or lounge.

In this volatile work environment, the boundaries around working hours and overtime pay are open to abuse by employees and employers alike. Work from home policies should be specific in terms of flexibility of working hours, and the parameters around flexibility should be clearly defined. 

Rewarding employees for projects completed rather than hours worked could prove a more reliable way to measure performance rather than hours worked.  The extent of success that the remote work model brings can only be truly compared and verified if employees are fully present in the workplace once more. 

Written by Lucille Schedler from Khusela Employment Solutions (Pty) Ltd

If you’d like further information, please contact Lucille on 082 885 4169

-----------------------------------------------------

Older Articles - August 2020

REDEFINING WORKPLACE DYNAMICS

100 days into lockdown.

----------------------------------------------------

Virtually overnight, the workforce had to transform from a place of personal interaction to cyberspace platforms that were previously unrevealed in the traditional workplace to connect with colleagues.

Previously, requests from employees to work from home would often be met with scepticism. Who would have believed that in a short space of time, most of the world would be working from home?

In the future, our colleagues will not necessarily congregate in a fixed place workplace – they could be scattered in different locations. The new technological workplace focuses on function and competency rather than on a hierarchy of employees.

The innovative worker, with their unique knowledge, can now perform without being managed through an upward chain of command. Workplaces built in the industrial era with hierarchies will be subject to transformation.  If they can’t adapt, they could lose market share in the new industrial revolution – the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR).

 A defining feature of connecting in the 4IR where technology must be embraced is a blurring of physical and biological boundaries. There is no other industrial revolution which is comparable with the speed at which current breakthroughs are emerging. Operating successfully in the emerging digital economy highlights the importance of developing policy responses to this new era.

We are surviving through this pandemic only because of technology. Everyone with at least a smartphone has the potential to earn or maintain some livelihood. The 4IR has the potential to drive Africa forward, enabling innovation and independence and to improve service delivery. This is the change most Africans will appreciate.

Written by Lucille Schedler, Management Consultant at Khusela Empowerment Solutions (Pty) Ltd.

If you’d like further information, please contact Lucille on 082 885 4169

Contact Us Today

We are the best labour attorneys/labour lawyers. If anyone can win your case it is us!

Do not settle for less than the best! Goldberg Attorneys have an impeccable record having won most of their cases!

Call Now ButtonCall Now