• The Expert Explains

    The Expert Explains

    Question: Valid or not?
    "Your hours of work can be changed, provided you are given 12 hours notice of such change"?

  • See more video clips


    While the proposed amendments to labour legislation have attracted significant media attention, many refinements can still be introduced before the amendments reach the statute book. Even so, employers should be mindful that they will be facing far-reaching changes to the current labour law dispensation. So what could and should employers do at this stage to […]

    Sorry, but this information is available to subscribers only. If you are a subscriber, please log in to access this page. If you would like to subscribe, please Register here or visit Subscriber benefits for more information.



    1. admin
      Posted 31 May 2011 at 9:33 am | Permalink

      The EE Amendment Bill seems to envisage only differences in terms and conditions of employment between employees of the same employer who perform the same or substantially the same work or work of equal value. In your case we are dealing with different employers. Even if one considers the extension of joint and several liability (of employers and labour brokers) envisaged in the Labour Relations Amendment Bill and the Employment Services Bill, the EE Amendment Bill deals with certain arbitrary grounds of discrimination and I doubt that it would extend to your situation. However, we shall have to wait and see what the final legislative product looks like before adopting a firm view on the matter. Jan Truter for Labourwise

    2. Marinda
      Posted 31 May 2011 at 8:57 am | Permalink

      How will the ‘Work of equal value’ be applied on outsourced functions? Will a difference in terms and conditions of employment [especially working hours, leave entitlement and remuneration] between employees of two outsourcers, but for the same client, who perform the same or substantially the same work or work of equal value also fall under this category? And is there any difference in this between the client’s own employees and that of the outsourcer? I ask this because my employees [outsourced in a concern resolution centre] get less than the client’s own guys in the warehouse, packing supplies the whole day.

    3. Posted 29 March 2011 at 9:21 am | Permalink

      The proposed amendments are very controversial and we foresee several changes. We don’t know when the amendments will be implemented, but indications are that this may take much longer than initially anticipated.

    4. Natasha
      Posted 28 March 2011 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

      When are the proposed amendments being implemented?

    5. Raymond
      Posted 23 February 2011 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

      Smaller employers seem to faithful to legislation, its looks like the big guns are the ones who a in fear of the changes

    6. Posted 22 February 2011 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

      Interestingly I notice no reference to the proposed 3 year grace period for existing TES contracts.

    7. Posted 22 February 2011 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

      It is however interesting to note that BUSA withdraw from the NEDLAC process awaiting clarification on Government’s position –
      “At our last meeting ,BUSA MANCO agreed that the four Bills are in essence an attack on the very foundations of management in Business and thus we will not be participating in NEDLAC until such time as Governments position is made clear. This decision was well supported by the MANCO members.”

    8. Raymond
      Posted 21 February 2011 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

      Is it really difficult to remove the loophole? Why can Labour Brokers not be made responsible for payment facilitation and the actual client company that requests the workers service be held liable for enforcing employment rights/legislation. Qui mandate ipse fecisse vedetur,”he who orders an act to be done does the act most of all”

    9. Malvern
      Posted 21 February 2011 at 9:56 am | Permalink

      Jan I agree totally with you. I am an employer who has had trouble in the past with an employee that walked out and I was penalised for that. Now I am very careful about the person I am employing and on what conditions. Because of the ccma i am already concerned about employing somebody and this only makes it worse. Give jobs Zuma and make life miserable.

    10. Jan Truter
      Posted 21 February 2011 at 8:47 am | Permalink

      Our view is as follows: As far as existing employees are concerned, the amendments will increase job security (at least for employees earning below a certain threshold). From an employer’s perspective there are a few positive points (e.g. more clarity on certain aspects; high earning employees can be held accountable without fear of disputes being referred to the CCMA). However, the overall effect of the amendments will be unnecessarily punitive, will increase the cost of doing business and will discourage employers from appointing new staff. All in all, the amendments are likely to impact negatively on employment creation. A detailed analysis can be found in the Regulatory Impact Assessment (referred to as “the RIA”) by the University of Cape Town, dated 9 September 2010.

    11. Mmatholo Mabotja
      Posted 20 February 2011 at 8:44 pm | Permalink

      How will this new proposed legislation affect the employer, enployee, the employment and the unemployment in South Africa

    Post a Comment

    Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *