Our Insights

Upcoming Events

Panel Discussion: Decoding the 2025 Budget Speech

Date: 26 February 2025 | Location: Online webinar – link will be sent to registrants

Join us for our annual online panel discussion as our expert panellists set to work decoding the 2025 national budget from a legal, tax, accounting, fiduciary, and compliance perspective and discuss the implications it holds for individuals, trusts, and companies. 

Event Details
Date: 26 February 2025
Start Time: 26 February 2025 03:00 PM
End Time: 26 February 2025 04:00 PM

Panel Discussion: Decoding the 2025 Budget Speech

Date: 26 February 2025 | Location: Online webinar – link will be sent to registrants

Join us for our annual online panel discussion as our expert panellists set to work decoding the 2025 national budget from a legal, tax, accounting, fiduciary, and compliance perspective and discuss the implications it holds for individuals, trusts, and companies. 

Event Details
Date: 26 February 2025
Start Time: 26 February 2025 03:00 PM
End Time: 26 February 2025 04:00 PM

VIEW
48
Event
GO
GO
Filter: Dismissal
See no evil, speak no evil: reporting misconduct

30 October 2024

What are the consequences of an employee turning a blind eye to the misconduct of their fellow employees? The CCMA... recently confirmed that dismissal may be an acceptable consequence for failing to report wrongdoing.

READ MORE
384
Article
Unfair dismissal? Your rights during business rescue

06 June 2024,  Lesley Mokgoro

Facing dismissal after years of service can be tough, but what happens when the company goes into business rescue before... you can challenge the decision? Find out if you can still refer your unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA in our latest article.

READ MORE
955
Article
Can you use your culture to justify being absent from work?

15 January 2024,  Sinenhlanhla Khoza

Employers are required to respect and honour the rights of their employees. However, in return, employees are required in terms... of their employment relationship to offer their services and not be absent from work without leave. But how do these rights stack up when an employee claims their right to culture as justification for being absent from work? In this article, we take a look at a recent CCMA case that had to dissect this rather complex question.

READ MORE
1173
Article
Can you be fired if artificial intelligence can do your job?

29 March 2023,  Sinenhlanhla Khoza

Social media has been flooded with chatter about the chatbot phenomenon ChatGPT which seems destined to be able to, if... not far better do, what humans can! So, what does this mean for employees? Can you be replaced by a bot like ChatGPT? In this article, we take a closer look at what this could mean for employees in the not-so-distant future.

READ MORE
1163
Article
Can you be dismissed for not returning to the office post Covid-19

22 November 2022,  Sinenhlanhla Khoza

With the national Covid-19 lockdown slowly becoming a thing of the past, many employers have asked employees to return to... the office, full time or on a hybrid basis. But, employees have become used to working from home and some don’t want to return to the office. What happens if an employee refuses to return to the office and offers to continue to work from home?

READ MORE
2844
Article
How you can get fired for airing an opinion on WhatsApp

15 September 2022,  Tata Mokwayi

With the prevalence of social media and platforms for sharing information, is it possible that you can get fired for... a post or group message you made?

READ MORE
2633
Article
Dismissal after retirement age not unfair

30 August 2022,  Sinenhlanhla Khoza

The Labour Relations Act (LRA) states that a dismissal based on age is fair if the employee has reached the... normal or agreed retirement age for persons employed in that capacity. Yet what about cases where the employee was allowed to work beyond their normal or agreed retirement age?

READ MORE
1967
Article
Can you be fired for a WhatsApp message?

14 June 2022

With so much communication happening via WhatsApp these days, even between employee and employer, it raises the question as to... whether an employee can be fired for a WhatsApp sent to his/her employer?

READ MORE
3851
Article
Can you take steps against an employee who refuses to testify?

13 April 2022,  Tata Mokwayi

Often when employers are confronted with serious misconduct by an employee, a vital part of the disciplinary process is to... have other employees testify about the misconduct where they were eye witnesses and/or have knowledge of the misconduct committed. But what happens when an employee refuses to testify against another employee?

READ MORE
1035
Article
Can you dismiss an employee for refusing to be vaccinated?

21 March 2022,  Sinenhlanhla Khoza

Many companies are struggling with the question of whether they can make it mandatory for their employees to be vaccinated... against the Covid-19 virus and, if necessary, even take disciplinary steps against an employee who refuses to be vaccinated. So what does our law say about this?

READ MORE
1530
Article
Dismissal for refusing vaccination ruled to be fair

27 January 2022,  Sinenhlanhla Khoza

The publishing of the Consolidated Directive on occupational Health and Safety Measure in certain workplaces in June 2020 caused an... uproar due to the introduction of possible mandatory vaccination in certain workplaces. Since then,  many employers in the country have adopted policies which makes vaccination mandatory for their employees. This opened the door for an unvaccinated employee now possibly putting their own livelyhoods on the line by refusing to be vaccinated.  In a very recent ruling made by the CCMA, the Commissioner found the dismissal of the employee for refusing to take the vaccine, "substantively fair." In this particular case, the employee - employed as a business-related and training officer since 2018 - had refused to receive the vaccine in accordance with the Company’s Mandatory Vaccination Policy (MVP) and mainly contended that being mandated to take the vaccine contravened her right to bodily integrity as guaranteed by our Constitution. Upon her refusal, the company held an incapacity hearing for the employee and she was dismissed on the grounds of incapacity. Aggrieved by her dismissal, the employee then referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA.  However, the Commissioner noted in her ruling that proper procedure was followed by the company prior to the adoption of its MVP, and that various consultations were held with the unions and employees over a period of three months. The company has also made specialists available to address any questions their employees may have. This MVP also made provision for the employees to apply for exemption which was to be reviewed by the Mandatory Vaccination Policy Committee. While the employee had applied for such an exemption, it was refused on the grounds that the company viewed her as a high-risk employee who interacted a lot with colleagues daily while on duty in confined and unegulatable spaces.During the CCMA hearing, the employee contended further that she felt extreme social pressure and emotional discomfort in having to decide between her livelihood and accepting the vaccinate, and that she did not trust the vaccine because of fears regarding the effects it may have on her. In making her ruling, the Commissioner noted the earlier writing of Judge Roland Sutherland to his colleagues on the issue of vaccination in which he said “There has been, as yet, only mild protest that this (no vaccination no entry policy) violates freedom of choice … in my view this is the wrong question. The proper question is whether or not an individual is sufficiently civic-minded to appreciate that a duty of care is owed to colleagues and others with whom contact is made to safeguard them from harm. If one wishes to be an active member of a community then the incontrovertible legitimate interest of the community must trump the preferences of the individual.”Having heard the versions of both parties and having been influenced by Judge Sutherland’s sentiments, the Commissioner concluded that the employee’s refusal to be vaccinated rendered her “permanently incapacitated” and as such her dismissal was fair. The arbitration award, which the employee may still refer to the Labour Court for review, places emphasis on the competing interests between the employer and the employees - and how we are now, more than ever, living in times where the good of the greater good must take preference of those of an individual.  Employers should note though, that this case is not “one size fits all”, and are urged to follow a fair, specific and objective process for employees who refuse to be vaccinated. 

READ MORE
1537
Blog
Final ruling: Costs do not follow the result in labour matters

12 October 2021,  Tata Mokwayi

Litigants, particularly employees and/or employers, often fear approaching institutions such as the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (“CCMA”); the... Labour Court or the Labour Appeal Court when aggrieved with an unfavourable outcome due to the likelihood of automatically having a cost order against them. The fear is often based on an established rule in litigation that costs follow the result. However, this rule does not apply in labour matters as labour disputes favour an approach based on “law and fairness”. The Constitutional Court has, once again, issued a judgment to clarify that costs do not follow the result in labour matters. The rule that costs do not follow the result in labour matters honours key imperatives that flow directly from the Constitution and the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“the LRA”). The Court explained that two constitutional provisions are particularly relevant when it comes to the question about costs, which are: section 23 of the Constitution which entrenches various labour rights, including the right to fair labour practices and section 34 of the Constitution which enshrines the right to have one’s dispute resolved by the application of law in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum. The judgment provided that it is clear from a holistic reading of the LRA that the dispute resolution mechanisms that it creates such as the CCMA; Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court were meant to be a “one stop shop” for the resolution of labour disputes.These mechanisms were intended to be simple and accessible, so that those to whom the labour rights enshrined in our Constitution are conferred can vindicate those rights speedily and cost-effectively.  This laudable statutory goal would be eroded when the bearers of labour rights are faced with the threat of adverse costs orders if their claims are, for whatever reason, unsuccessful. The rule against automatic costs orders is an integral part of the scheme of the LRA in that it ensures access to labour dispute resolution institutions and no doubt enlarges the width by which the doors of those institutions are kept open.The court reiterated that it is imperative for our constitutional democracy that the doors of labour dispute resolution institutions be kept wide open for litigants to air their grievances, so that unlawful industrial action, and all its potential consequences, is generally avoided. It is important to note that the court made it abundantly clear that the implication of the judgment does not mean that costs orders can never be ordered against a party involved in a labour matter. However, when making costs orders in labour matters, courts are enjoined to apply the fairness standard in the LRA as a matter of constitutional and statutory obligation. The judicial exercise of a court’s discretion to award costs requires, at the very least, that the court must do two things.  First, it must give reasons for doing so and must account for its departure from the ordinary rule that costs should not be ordered.   Second, it must apply its mind to the dictates of the fairness standard in section 162 of the LRA, and the constitutional and statutory imperatives that underpin it.  Where a court fails to do so, it commits an error of law and thus misdirects itself.  

READ MORE
1462
Blog

Subscribe to our newsletters

Stay up-to-date with the latest news, laws, and events.

SUBSCRIBE NOW