For more details email: owenadeninfo@mweb.co.za

Despite the challenges, it was a rewarding exercise.  St. Mary’s Hospital has a holistic approach to customer service. Customer care is an essential component of the organisation’s mission and mandate. Despite the delegates already having a strong understanding of the need for customer service, and the principles of customer care, much was learnt from the workshop.  Here are some of the comments:

• Everything was useful because the work we do is stressful and we need techniques to do our work.
• How to deal with complaints was the most useful.
• Even though we are working in a hospital environment, we must try and put ourselves in the patient’s shoes. Treat someone the way you would like to be treated.
• The whole workshop was superb

In these matters the Labour Relations Act (Act 66 of 1995) has a set of guidelines entitled “Schedule 8,  The Code of Good Practice: Dismissal”

The guidelines set out succinctly what an employer must do when implementing disciplinary action at the workplace.  It also sets out what the employer must do if an employee has committed a serious act of misconduct which may lead to the employee’s dismissal.  In summary the employer must hold an enquiry to determine if there are sufficient grounds for dismissal before dismissing an employee.

However the Code also states the following:

“Formal procedures do not have to be invoked every time a rule is broken or a standard is not met.  Informal advice and correction is the best and most effective way for an employer to deal with minor violations of work discipline.”

In addition,

“Efforts should be made to correct an employee’s behavior through a system of graduated disciplinary measures such as counselling and warnings.”

In terms of the guidelines it is NOT necessary to hold a formal disciplinary Hearing before issuing a written warning. What is required is that the employee must be made aware of the misconduct he/she is accused of doing and his/her response must be heard and noted.  Thereafter a warning stating that if the same or similar misconduct occurs again the employee will face further disciplinary action, which would include the possibility of dismissal.

This approach was confirmed in the CCMA award in the matter of NUMSA obo Tshikana/Delta Motor Corporation [2003] 11 BAL R 1302 (CCMA).

The award made clear that an employer cannot be expected to hold a formal disciplinary Hearing every time an employee breaches a rule.  As the Commissioner stated

“If this were a requirement, employers, Human Resources or Industrial Relations Officers would be involved in Hearings round the clock.”

So there you have it. Warnings to recalcitrant employees can be issued without holding a formal disciplinary hearing.

For more information any of our Training programmes please contact us.

Public Training Seminar Durban

Some Comments from the Delegates:

v  Importance of listening and asking questions

v  Role playing because it brings the work situation into context

v  How to negotiate and the negotiating process

For more information on our Effective Negotiation skills and other Training programmes please contact us.

Manica

For more information on our Modern Management and other Training programmes please contact us.

Khamotso Khalo, Duduzile Tobela, Melanie Govender

Stephen Renou

Andrew Rall, Megan Tapson

Before looking at these certain sections we need to be sure of what is meant by the term “earning in excess of R172 000 per annum”.  Earnings exclude allowances such as subsistence allowances, transport allowances, overtime pay, and achievement awards (?).

Earnings include deductions made by the employer for income tax purposes, pension or provident funds medical aid or any similar deductions.  It also includes an annual bonus and leave pay.

Employees earning over R172 000 per annum, which equates to R14 333 per month are not entitled to receive payment for:

v  Overtime worked over their normal hours of duty

v  Sunday work

v  Public Holiday work

In addition their hours of work are not restricted to a maximum of 45 hours per week, nor are their meal intervals or rest periods prescribed in the BCOEA.

Clearly such an employee may enter into an agreement with his/her employer where these matters are properly dealt with.  In the absence of such an agreement the employee falls under the control of his/her employer where he/she works overtime, or works on a Sunday or public Holiday.

Employers or Employees – Beware!!!!

By: Les Owen

The amendments will also provide more points for those organizations that support enterprise development and procurement from Black owned businesses.

At present businesses with an annual turnover of less then R5 million are automatically regarded as level 4 contributors to BEE.  This R5 million threshold is soon to be reviewed.

In addition, organizations whose annual turnover is between R5 million and R35 million presently have the option of being scored on any 4 of the 7 elements in the scorecard.  Each of the 4 elements is given 25 points.  This option of choosing any 4 will be amended and some of the 7 elements will be made compulsory.  Indications are that the ownership element will probably become compulsory.

Organizations who need more information or assistance in meeting BEE requirements should contact us.  We have assisted many business to improve their BEE status since 2005.

Les Owen

Act 70 of 2002 known as the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act covers same aspects as to when an employer may have access to the electronic communication of its employees.

The general rule is that an individual may intercept such communication if he or she is a party to the communication itself or if the information is in the public domain.

In the CCMA Award Sedick and Another / Krisray (Pty) Ltd. [2011] 8 BALR 879 (CCMA), the Operations Manager of the Company had placed disparaging remarks on his Facebook page about the company and its owners.

As a consequence the Operations Manager and another Senior Staff member were dismissed.  They argued the Facebook information was private and consequently they should not have been dismissed.

The Commissioner ruled that Facebook was in the public domain and the comments concerned the company and its owners.  The owners were entitled both to look at the information and to take appropriate action.  The dismissal was found to be fair.

Article by Leslie Owen