Baby Boomers: At What Age Must You Retire?

A3BEmployers need to be particularly on their guard for cases in which a workplace dismissal is automatically unfair.  Our courts take a particularly dim view of discrimination cases falling into this category.

Age discrimination is one such instance, and an employer faced with such a claim can defend it only by proving (the onus is on the employer) that the employee has reached “the normal or agreed retirement age for persons employed in that capacity”.

With “Baby Boomers” (people born between 1946 and 1964) now retiring in record numbers, expect to see a spike in disputes and litigation over retirement issues.  A recent Labour Court decision illustrates just how costly any mistake in this regard is likely to be for the employer.

Forced to retire at 63, awarded nearly R1.3m

  1. An employee of an informally-run, family oriented business believed his agreed retirement age to be 65, although this was not specified in his contract of employment, and the business had no staff manual
  2. The business was sold twice, each time to larger corporations with more formal policies in place
  3. The employee refused to sign a new employment contract specifying an agreed retirement age of 60, saying it would be difficult to find new work at that age
  4. When he was forced to retire on turning 63, he approached the Labour Court for assistance, asking for 2 years’ remuneration as compensation in terms of the LRA (Labour Relations Act) and another 2 years’ remuneration as damages for violation of the EEA (Employment Equity Act)
  5. The employer defended this claim on the basis that retirement age for employees was governed by its standard retirement policy which set retirement age at 63 (previously 60)
  6. On the facts however it was unable to prove this defence, and the Court found the dismissal to be unfair and awarded the employee compensation of R1,283,760 (16 months’ remuneration).
  7. Note that the Court accepted that the employer had acted in good faith, genuinely believing that it was entitled to apply the standard retirement policy in the absence of a written agreement to another retirement age.  Had the employer acted in bad faith, the Court would doubtless have made a much higher award – and whilst claims for automatically unfair dismissal in terms of the LRA are capped at 24 months’ remuneration, EEA awards have no such limit.

Employers: your essential action plan

  • No matter how small or informally-run your business may be, have all new employees sign written employment contracts specifying a compulsory retirement age
  • If your existing employment contracts don’t stipulate a retirement age, remedy that now.  Note that this must be a matter for negotiation; you cannot unilaterally impose new terms like these on employees.

Employees: fight any form of discrimination

You have strong legal protection from all forms of unfair discrimination, direct or indirect, “on any arbitrary ground, including, but not limited to race, gender, sex, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, political opinion, culture, language, marital status or family responsibility.”

For more advice and practical solutions you are welcome to contact our Employment Law  department.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other 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 your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

Discrimination against pregnant women in the workplace

JanB01Employees are often faced with a difficult situation in the workplace when falling pregnant. Many establishments react unfavourably towards female employees that fall pregnant. These employees are often discriminated against in various direct and indirect manners. There are, however, clear provisions that protect employees in these situations which employees should familiarise themselves with.

There are different ways in which employees can be discriminated against in the workplace due to the fact that the employee has fallen pregnant. These forms of discrimination have different degrees of disadvantage towards the employee. It can range from having her contract terminated, being treated badly, being verbally abused or being ridiculed because she has fallen pregnant.

As a point of departure, it is stated in Section 9(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa[1], that nobody may be discriminated against based on the fact that they are pregnant. It is therefore a constitutional right for an employee not to be discriminated against in any form or manner because of her pregnancy. This right is further confirmed by Paragraph 4.2 of the Code of Good Practice on the Protection of Employees during Pregnancy[2].

The most severe form of discrimination against an employee is the dismissal of an employee due to the fact that she has fallen pregnant. The Labour Relations Act [3] specifically mentions that an employer is not entitled to dismiss an employee due to her pregnancy. However, there are various other ways of discriminating against a pregnant employee that should be noted.

Employees should be mindful of more subtle forms of discrimination, such as contracts not being renewed when it was earlier apparent that it would have been, or where a promotion is not granted to an employee purely because she has fallen pregnant at a certain time. Whenever an employee can prove that there was a direct link between any disadvantage and her pregnancy, she will most likely be entitled to the appropriate remedy. Employees are further entitled to a certain amount of unpaid maternity leave and will be entitled to insist on it.

In the event of an employee being dismissed due to her pregnancy, or where it is clear that an employee was discriminated against in any way for this reason, there are various remedies for the employee to choose from. It is always a good idea to resolve the issue without taking legal action, as this will be an expensive exercise and will most likely cause a relatively uncomfortable atmosphere between an employee and an employer. An informal arrangement between the employer and employee is therefore recommended, yet it is not always a practical solution. However, if no other option is available to the employee, she will always have the option to approach the CCMA as well as Labour Courts to prove that she was discriminated against due to her pregnancy. She will then be in a position to request the appropriate remedy.

In conclusion, female employees should be mindful of possible forms of discrimination against them as it is clearly prohibited. Direct and indirect forms of discrimination exist but aren’t always easy to identify. However, if identified and proven, such discrimination will not be allowed and must subsequently be corrected.

Bibliography

Acts:

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

Code of Good Practice on the Protection of Employees during Pregnancy

Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995

[1] Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

[2] Code of Good Practice on the Protection of Employees during Pregnancy

[3] Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other 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 your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

Sexual harassment in the workplace

Click here for Afrikaans Article

A4_bThe idea of “the corporate workplace” has changed significantly in recent years and nowadays there are more women to be found in positions that were previously filled only by men. Unfortunately this has given rise to the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace. In this article we focus on what sexual harassment is and what someone can do if they are being subjected to it.

Both men and women can be victims of sexual harassment; however, it is more common for this type of harassment to be directed at women in the workplace. According to Section 6(3) of the Employment Equity Act[1] (EEA) harassment of an employee is a form of unfair discrimination and is prohibited on any of the grounds of unfair discrimination, which includes gender. The test for sexual harassment, as set out in Item 4 of the Amended Code of Good Practice on the Handling of Sexual Harassment Cases in the Workplace (the Code), is whether the conduct is unwelcome, of a sexual nature, violates the rights of an employee and constitutes a barrier to equity in the workplace, taking into account the following factors:

  1. Whether the harassment is on the prohibited grounds of sex and/or gender and/or sexual orientation;
  2. Whether the sexual conduct was unwelcome;
  3. The nature and extent of the sexual conduct; and
  4. The impact of the sexual conduct on the employee.[2]

There are three types of conduct that can constitute sexual harassment:

  1. Physical conduct such as touching;
  2. Verbal conduct such as innuendos; and
  3. Non-verbal conduct such as showing another person sexually explicit photographs.[3]

Certain types of sexual harassment are common in the workplace. One such type is quid pro quo harassment, which is where someone is forced to give in to sexual advances to avoid losing their job or a job related benefit. Another type is sexual favouritism where only those who submit to sexual advances can progress or receive benefits in the workplace. There is also sexual victimisation, where those who do not submit to sexual advances are prejudiced. Lastly we have the scenario where jokes, pictures or innuendos create a hostile working environment which need not be directed against one specific employee.[4]

According to Item 8 of the Code there is an obligation on employers to develop clear procedures to deal with sexual harassment, which should enable the resolution of problems in a sensitive, efficient and effective way. Section 60(1) of the EEA provides that conduct in contravention with its provisions must immediately be brought to the attention of the employer. This means as soon as is reasonably possible in the circumstances and without undue delay, taking into account the sensitive nature of sexual harassment, that the complainant may fear reprisals and the relative positions of the complainant and the alleged perpetrator in the workplace. The victim of the sexual harassment need not be the one to bring it to the attention of the employer; any other person who is aware of the sexual harassment may also do so.[5]

Once the sexual harassment has been brought to the attention of the employer the employer should consult all the relevant parties, take the necessary steps to address the complaint in accordance with the Code and the employer’s policy, and take all the necessary steps, which are set out in Item 8.3 of the Code, to eliminate the sexual harassment.[6]

A complainant or another person may choose to follow an informal procedure, the first of which is to explain to the perpetrator that the conduct in question is not welcome, that it offends the complainant, makes him or her feel uncomfortable and that it interferes with his or her work. The second way of handling this is for an appropriate person to approach the perpetrator, without revealing the identity of the complainant, and explain that certain forms of conduct constitute sexual harassment, are offensive and unwelcome, make employees feel uncomfortable and interfere with their work.[7]

If a complainant does not find the abovementioned satisfactory then he or she can follow the formal procedure set out in an employer’s sexual harassment policy and/or collective agreement, which should outline with whom the employee should lodge a grievance, the internal procedures to be followed and time frames which will allow the grievance to be dealt with expeditiously.[8]

If the complainant is still not satisfied with the results a complaint of sexual harassment may be referred to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). It is important to note here that it is a disciplinary offence to victimise or retaliate against a complainant who in good faith lodges a grievance of sexual harassment.[9]

Reference List:

Employment Equity Act, 55 of 1998

Amended Code of Good Practice on the Handling of Sexual Harassment Cases in the Workplace (4 August 2005)

A C Basson, M A Christianson, A Dekker, C Garbers, P A K le Roux, C Mischke, E M L Strydom: Essential Labour Law 5 ed (2009)

[1] 55 of 1998

[2] Item 4 of the Amended Code of Good Practice on the Handling of Sexual Harassment Cases in the Workplace(4  August 2005)

[3] AC Basson, MA Christianson, A Dekker, C Garbers, PAK le Roux, C Mischke, EML Strydom: Essential Labour Law 5ed (2009) 223

[4] Basson et al: Essential Labour Law 5 ed (2009) 223

[5] Item 8.1 of the Amended Code of Good Practice on the Handling of Sexual Harassment Cases in the Workplace

[6] Item 8.2 of the Amended Code of Good Practice on the Handling of Sexual Harassment Cases in the Workplace

[7] Item 8.6 of the Amended Code of Good Practice on the Handling of Sexual Harassment Cases in the Workplace

[8] Item 8.7 of the Amended Code of Good Practice on the Handling of Sexual Harassment Cases in the Workplace

[9] Item 8.7 of the Amended Code of Good Practice on the Handling of Sexual Harassment Cases in the Workplace

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other 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 your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Are restraint of trade agreements always valid and enforceable?

Historically restraint of trade agreements were void and unenforceable unless the employer could prove that it was a reasonable agreement entered into between the parties. Fortunately for employers the position in our law has changed.

What are restraint of trade agreements?
An agreement that seeks to restrict a party’s right to carry on a trade, business or profession in such manner or with such persons as he/she sees fit, is restraint of trade.

Restraint of trade clauses are most commonly found in employment and partnership contracts, which usually takes effect after termination of the contract, or in sale of a business or practice.

Why are they controversial?

They are controversial because there is a clash of fundamental values: on the one hand there is freedom or sanctity of contract which relies on agreements being honoured, and on the other hand there is freedom of trade which is a constitutionally recognised right.

As with other contracts, restraint of trade agreements are presumed to be prima facie valid and enforceable. Whereas the onus had earlier been on the employer to prove that implementation of restraint of trade was fair and in public interest, the onus is now on the employee to show why enforcement in the particular circumstances would be against the public interest.

An unreasonable restraint is contrary to the public interest and hence unenforceable. The reasonableness of a restraint of trade clause or agreement is judged on two bases: broad interests of community, and interests of the parties themselves.

Reasonableness inter partes depends on a variety of factors:

  • Does the employer have a protectable interest?
  • Area and duration of restraint (possibility of partial enforcement)
  • Concession by the employee in the contract that restraint is reasonable, and inequality of bargaining power of parties (these factors carry little weight)

Examples of protectable interests are confidential information, trade secrets, customer connections and lists, and goodwill of the business. However, it does not include interest in the elimination of competition, and the investment of time and capital in the training of the employee.

It is not sufficient simply to label confidential information as such. In order to be confidential the information must be commercially useful, in other words capable of application in trade or industry, have economic value to the person seeking to protect it, and be known only to a restricted number of people.

With regards to trade connections, it will only be relevant when the employee has close working relations with the customers, to such an extent that there is a danger of him/her taking them with him/her when he/she leaves the business. Relevant factors here include the following:

  • duties of the employee;
  • his/her personality;
  • frequency and duration of the contact with the customers;
  • his/her influence over them;
  • nature of his/her relationship with them (degree of attachment, extent of their reliance on him/her);
  • level of competition between the rival businesses;
  • type of product sold; and
  • evidence that customers were lost when he/she left the business.

With reference to the above the following questions must be asked:

  1. Does party A have an interest deserving of protection?
  2. Is such interest being prejudiced by party B?
  3. If so, how does A’s interest weigh up qualitatively and quantitatively against B’s interest in not being economically inactive and unproductive?
  4. Is there some broader facet of public policy that requires the enforcement or rejection of the restraint?

If restraint of trade agreement is reasonable inter partes, it may still be unenforceable if it is damaging to the public interest for a reason not peculiar to the parties.

Sources:
Basson v Chilwan & Others [1993] 3 SA 742
Sunshine Records (Pty) Ltd v Flohing & Others 1990 (4) SA 782 (A)
Magna Alloys & Research (SA) (Pty) Ltd v Ellis 1984 (4) SA 874 (A)

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other 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 your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Is ‘n handelsbeperkingsklousule altyd geldig en afdwingbaar?

In die verlede was handelsbeperkingsooreenkomste ongeldig en onafdwingbaar, tensy die werkgewer kon bewys dat die ooreenkoms billik is. Gelukkig vir werkgewers het hierdie situasie verander.

Wat is ‘n handelsbeperking?

‘n Ooreenkoms wat ‘n party se reg om te handel of ‘n besigheid of beroep te bedryf, beperk op sodanige manier of met sodanige partye as wat hy/sy goeddink, is ‘n handelsbeperking.

‘n Werkgewer sal tipies in die dienskontrak of ‘n aparte ooreenkoms ‘n handelsbeperkingsklousule insluit wat gewoonlik van krag word wanneer die kontrak getermineer of die besigheid of praktyk verkoop word.

Hoekom is hierdie tipe klousule omstrede?

Dit is omstrede omdat daar ‘n botsing van fundamentele waardes is: aan die een kant is daar ‘n algemene kontrakteursvryheid wat daarop staatmaak dat partye by hul kontrakte gehou moet word, en aan die ander kant is daar handelsvryheid wat ‘n erkende reg volgens die grondwet is.

Soos ander ooreenkomste is handelsbeperkings prima facie geldig en afdwingbaar. Voorheen het die werkgewer die bewyslas gehad om te bewys dat die implementering van die handelsbeperkingsklousule billik en in openbare belang is. Die situasie is nou omgekeerd en die werknemer het nou die bewyslas om te bewys dat afdwinging van die beperking teen openbare belang sal indruis.

‘n Onredelike beperking sal teen die openbare belang wees en dus onafdwingbaar. Die redelikheid van ‘n handelsbeperkingsklousule word beoordeel op die basis van breë belange van die gemeenskap en die belange van die individu self.

Redelikheid inter partes hang van verskeie faktore af:

  • Het die werkgewer ‘n beskermingswaardige belang?
  • Geografiese omvang en tydperk van die handelsbeperking (moontlikheid van gedeeltelike afdwinging)
  • Toegewing deur die werknemer in die kontrak dat die beperking redelik is, en ongelyke bedingingsvermoë van die verskillende partye (hierdie faktore dra min gewig)

Voorbeelde van beskermingswaardige belange is vertroulike inligting, handelsgeheime, kliëntverhoudings en -lyste, en die welwillendheid van die besigheid. Dit sluit egter nie planne om die kompetisie te elimineer en die belegging van tyd en kapitaal in die opleiding van die werknemer in nie.

Dit is nie genoeg dat vertroulike inligting net as sulks beskou word nie. Vir inligting om as vertroulik beskou te word, moet dit kommersieel nuttig wees, met ander woorde dit moet toegepas kan word in die industrie, ekonomiese waarde hê vir die persoon wat dit wil beskerm, en slegs bekend wees aan ‘n beperkte aantal persone.

Die bewys van handelsverbintenisse sal slegs relevant wees indien die werknemer toegang het tot die werkgewer se kliënte en sodanige verhouding met die werkgewer se kliënte het dat dit hom/haar in staat sou stel om so ‘n invloed oor hulle te hê dat die kliënte hom/haar sal volg indien hy/sy die diens van die werkgewer verlaat. Die volgende faktore is hier van belang:

  • die pligte van die werknemer;
  • die persoonlikheid van die werknemer;
  • die frekwensie en tydsduur van die werknemer se kontak met die kliënte;
  • sy/haar invloed or die kliënte;
  • aard van sy/haar verhouding met die klënte (mate van aanhang, omvang van hul vertroue in hom/haar);
  • vlak van kompetisie tussen die mededingende besighede;
  • die tipe produk wat verkoop word; en
  • bewyse dat kliënte verloor is as gevolg van die werknemer se vertrek.

Met verwysing tot die bogenoemde moet die volgende vrae gevra word:

  1. Is daar ‘n belang van party A wat waardig is om beskerm te word?
  2. Word daardie belang benadeel deur party B?
  3. Indien wel, weeg die belang van party A kwalitatief en kwantitatief meer teenoor die belang van party B, wat sal inhou dat daardie party ekonomies onaktief en onproduktief sal wees?
  4. Is daar enige openbare beleid wat vereis dat die handelsbeperking gehandhaaf of van die hand gewys word?

Al is die handelingsbeperkingsooreenkoms billik inter partes, mag dit nog steeds beslis word dat dit nie in openbare belang afgedwing moet word nie.

Bronnelys:
Basson v Chilwan & Others 1993 (3) SA 742 (A)
Sunshine Records (Pty) Ltd v Flohing & Others 1990 (4) SA 782 (A)
Magna Alloys & Research (SA) (Pty) Ltd v Ellis 1984 (4) SA 874 (A)

Hierdie artikel is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet nie gebruik of staatgemaak word op as professionele advies nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of vir enige verlies of skade wat voortspruit uit vertroue op enige inligting hierin nie. Kontak atyd jou finansiële adviseur vir spesifieke en gedetailleerde advies.

Basic conditions of employment

There are basic standards which are set out in the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 which regulate, amongst other, the working hours that employees are permitted to work. Whether these conditions are enforced in practice, however, is uncertain.

The Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (BCEA) sets certain minimum standards of working conditions for employees. In Section 1 and 3 the BCEA sets out that it does not apply to independent contractors, as well as certain others such as unpaid volunteers, members of the South African National Defence Force and South African National Secret Service. Conditions regulating working hours are included in the BCEA which, in addition to the general exclusions mentioned above, exclude the following persons:

  • Senior managers;
  • Sales staff who travel to the premises of customers and who regulate their own work hours;
  • Employees who work less than 24 hours a month for an employer;
  • Employees earning in excess of R 205 433.30 per annum.

If you do not fall into one of the abovementioned categories then the conditions in the BCEA (Sections 9 to 15) regulating working hours will apply to you.

The maximum amount of working hours per week are 45 hours. Those who work five days a week may work for 9 hours a day and those working six or seven days a week may work for 8 hours a day. These hours may be extended by agreement between an employee and employer but this extension is limited to a maximum of an extra 15 minutes per day or, alternatively, an extra 60 minutes per week.

A meal interval of at least 1 hour is due to an employee who works continuously for more than 5 hours and at this time the employee may only be asked to perform tasks that cannot be left undone or that cannot be entrusted to another employee. If the employee is required to work during a work interval, or if they are required to be available for work, that employee must be remunerated for being available during that time.

Overtime is limited to 10 hours per week if it is arranged per agreement between an employer and employee. This can, however, be increased to 15 hours a week by means of a collective agreement but this agreement is limited in duration in that it may not apply for more than 2 months in a 12 month period. The rate at which remuneration is calculated for overtime is at 1.5 times the employee’s normal remuneration.

These are some of the basic conditions regulating working hours, and further conditions and exceptions thereto can be found in Section 9 – 18 of the BCEA. Although the abovementioned conditions seem to provide protection to employees many employees will merely take note of them and continue to work overtime continuously without pay and without complaining. Unfortunately we live in a country where there are far more people to fill jobs than jobs available and therefore the only time that this Act is properly utilised is through collective bargaining and trade unions; therefore it offers little comfort to individual employees not belonging to trade unions.

Bibliography:

  • A C Basson, M A Christianson, A Dekker, C Gerbers, P A K Le Roux, C Mischke, E M L Strydom: Essential Labour Law 5th (2009)
  • Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other 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 your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Basiese diensvoorwaardes

Daar is basiese voorwaardes wat in die Wet op Basiese Diensvoorwaardes 75 van 1997 uiteengesit word. Die Wet reguleer, onder andere, die werksure wat werknemers toegelaat mag word om te werk. Of hierdie voorwaardes in die praktyk toegepas word, is egter onseker.

Die Wet op Basiese Diensvoorwaardes 75 van 1997 (WBD) stel sekere minimum standaarde van werksomstandighede vir werknemers. Die WBD bepaal in Artikels 1 en 3 dat dit nie van toepassing is op onafhanklike kontrakteurs, sowel as sekere ander persone soos onbetaalde vrywilligers, lede van die Suid-Afrikaanse Nasionale Weermag en die Suid-Afrikaanse Nasionale Geheime Diens nie. Voorwaardes rakende werksure is ingesluit in die WBD wat, benewens die algemene uitsluitings hierbo, die volgende persone insluit:

  • Senior bestuurders;
  • Verkoopspersoneel wat die persele van klante besoek en hul eie werksure reël;
  • Werknemers wat minder as 24 uur per maand vir ‘n werkgewer werk;
  • Werknemers wat meer as R 205 433.30 per jaar verdien.

As jy nie in een van die bogenoemde kategorieë val nie, sal die minimum standaarde in die WBD wat werksure reguleer op jou van toepassing wees.

Die maksimum aantal werksure per week is 45 ure. Diegene wat vyf dae per week werk, kan ʼn maksimum van 9 ure per dag werk en diegene wat ses of sewe dae ‘n week werk, kan ʼn maksimum van 8 ure per dag werk. Die ure kan per ooreenkoms tussen werknemer en werkgewer verleng word, maar hierdie verlenging is beperk tot ‘n maksimum van 15 minute ekstra per dag of 60 minute ekstra per week.

‘n Etenspouse van minstens 1 uur word toegeken aan ‘n werknemer wat vir meer as 5 ure aaneen gewerk het, en die werknemer mag in hierdie tyd slegs gevra word om take te doen wat nie ongedaan gelaat kan word nie of wat nie aan ‘n ander werknemer toevertrou kan word nie. As daar van die werknemer vereis word om te werk tydens sy etenspouse, of indien daar van hom verwag word om beskikbaar te wees vir werk, moet die werknemer vergoed word vir sy beskikbaarheid tydens dié tydperk.

Oortyd word tot 10 ure per week beperk as dit per ooreenkoms tussen ‘n werkgewer en werknemer gereël is. Dit kan egter tot 15 ure per week verhoog word deur middel van ‘n kollektiewe ooreenkoms, maar so ʼn ooreenkoms het beperkings en kan nie vir meer as twee maande in ‘n tydperk van 12 maande toegepas word nie. Die tarief waarteen die vergoeding vir oortyd bereken word, is 1.5 keer die werknemer se normale vergoeding.

Dit is ‘n paar van die basiese voorwaardes rakende werksure, en verdere voorwaardes en uitsonderings daarop kan in Artikel 9 – 18 van die WBD gevind word. Alhoewel die bogenoemde toestande lyk asof dit beskerming aan werknemers verskaf, sal baie mense bloot kennis daarvan neem en voortgaan om oortyd te werk sonder betaling en sonder om te kla. Ongelukkig leef ons in ‘n land waar daar baie meer mense is wat werk soek as wat daar werk beskikbaar is, dus is die enigste geval waar hierdie Wet behoorlik benut word, met kollektiewe bedinging en vakbonde; dit bied dus min troos vir individuele werknemers wat nie aan vakbonde behoort nie.

Verwysingslys:

  • A C Basson, M A Christianson, A Dekker, C Gerbers, P A K Le Roux, C Mischke, E M L Strydom Essential Labour Law 5de uitgawe (2009)
  • Wet op Basiese Diensvoorwaardes 75 van 1997

Hierdie artikel is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet nie gebruik of staatgemaak word op as professionele advies nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of vir enige verlies of skade wat voortspruit uit vertroue op enige inligting hierin nie. Kontak atyd jou finansiële adviseur vir spesifieke en gedetailleerde advies.