<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.w3.org/2000/08/w3c-synd/style.css" type="text/css"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
    <channel>
        <title>Polity.org.za | Labour Law Management Consulting</title>
        <description><![CDATA[Expert Labour Law Management Consulting for All Private and Public Sectors]]></description>
        <link>https://www.polity.org.za/page/labour-law-management-consulting</link>
        <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 May 2026 16:56:53 +0200</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
        <item>
            <title>Misunderstanding the objective test can mean a tightrope disaster</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/misunderstanding-the-objective-test-can-mean-a-tightrope-disaster-2026-04-24</link>
            <description><![CDATA[When arbitrators and judges decide on whether a dismissal was for a fair reason they are required to apply what is called ‘the objective test’. That is, they must establish whether a reasonable person would have decided unemotionally that the employee’s conduct merited dismissal. This test is difficult to apply because determining what a ‘reasonable person’ is is itself a matter of individual judgement. Nevertheless, employers need to understand this rigid principle because the courts are bound to apply it when deciding whether the employer has acted fairly.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Labour Law Management Consulting</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2026 15:38:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>720092</a_id>
        <updated>1777038035</updated>
        <published>1777037880</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001268315_resized_llmc1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Firing employees in anger shakes the tightrope</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/firing-employees-in-anger-shakes-the-tightrope-2026-03-27</link>
            <description><![CDATA[A great many employers are corporate entities or established organisations whose rules and procedures are set down coldly, dispassionately and objectively. However, the managers and supervisors who implement the employer’s rules are human beings who have emotions and who are often provoked by employee misconduct into ignoring the organisation’s objective rules. Angry employers too often fire employees on the spot for having broken workplace rules, or for doing poor work. This is understandable in circumstances where the employee has seriously messed up a business deal, damaged equipment, lost crucial information, committed a dishonest act, refused to obey an instruction or caused other serious damage. However, there is no place for anger in the implementation of discipline. This is because the resultant hasty and foolhardy action is likely to trip the employer up at the CCMA.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Labour Law Management Consulting</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 11:49:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>718214</a_id>
        <updated>1774605117</updated>
        <published>1774604940</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001262335_resized_llmc1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Victimising union members can rattle the labour law tightrope</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/victimising-union-members-can-rattle-the-labour-law-tightrope-2026-02-25</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The rights of workers to belong to trade unions and to participate in their activities is heavily protected by the Constitution and by the Labour Relations Act (LRA). Section 5 of the LRA specifically protects union members, would be union members and union activists from being dismissed or otherwise prejudiced due to their union membership.   Despite the above some employers do their best to get rid of unionised employees. This is likely because they see such employees as hostile or lazy or destructive. Over the years employers have used a variety of methods of getting rid of unionised employees. These methods include stating that unions are not welcome, favouring non-unionised employees, giving union members unpleasant tasks, exposing them to uncomfortable working conditions and cooking up false disciplinary charges against them.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Labour Law Management Consulting</category>
            <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2026 09:38:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>715996</a_id>
        <updated>1772005264</updated>
        <published>1772005080</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001255763_resized_llmc1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Workplace slip ups sway the tightrope</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/workplace-slip-ups-sway-the-tightrope-2026-01-28</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Even where employers are conscientious in keeping their workplaces safe accidents can happen. To relieve employers of the burden of being sued by employees for accidents occurring at the workplace the state instituted the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA) several decades ago. Should a workplace injury comply with the legal definition the employer is required to report it to the Compensation Commissioner. The Compensation Commissioner is to compensate employees with valid claims for medical expenses, loss of the use of body parts and/or loss of remuneration due to injury induced absence from work. Some employers acquire workplace injury cover from private insurance companies. Where such insurance companies believe that an injury claim is not valid, they will refuse to pay it.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Labour Law Management Consulting</category>
            <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2026 12:20:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>714048</a_id>
        <updated>1769595789</updated>
        <published>1769595600</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001250038_resized_llmc1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Non-payment of commission sways the tightrope</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/non-payment-of-commission-sways-the-tightrope-2026-01-05</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) entitles employees to certain minimum rights as regards their terms and conditions of employment. These rights include, amongst others the right to be remunerated for work done, be given vacation leave, sick leave, maternity leave and family responsibility leave, be paid for overtime worked, lunch breaks, weekly and daily rest periods, night work allowances, public holidays, salary advices and written terms and conditions of employment. The Department of Employment and Labour (DOEL) is required (with the help of the courts) to enforce this legislation unless the employee in question does not fall under the BCEA’s protection because, for example, he/she earns above the BCEA threshold or (in some cases) is a senior manager.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Labour Law Management Consulting</category>
            <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2026 10:19:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>712381</a_id>
        <updated>1767601306</updated>
        <published>1767601140</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001245351_resized_llmc1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Labour Appeal Court knocks employer off tightrope</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/labour-appeal-court-knocks-employer-off-tightrope-2025-11-28</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The courts do not normally interfere with an employer’s decisions relating to appointment of applicants to positions. However, exceptions to this norm might be made where the appointment constitutes a promotion of an internal applicant or where the employer has broken its own rules pertaining to applicant appointment. Employers too often make appointment decisions based on private agendas instead of on the basis of employment policy and fairness to the applicants. This raises the question as to how employers justify to themselves their right to flout policy and the principles of fairness. Often, this misguided self-justification stems from the employer’s belief in its own management prerogative.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Labour Law Management Consulting</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2025 12:18:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>711111</a_id>
        <updated>1764325284</updated>
        <published>1764325080</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001242031_resized_llmc1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Downplaying Arbitration Awards Rocks The Tightrope: Double punishment not on</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/downplaying-arbitration-awards-rocks-the-tightrope-double-punishment-not-on-2025-10-27</link>
            <description><![CDATA[It is well established that employees must not be punished twice for the same offence unless exceptional circumstances exist. But what happens if an arbitrator has imposed a punishment and the employer feels it is too lenient? In the peculiar case of SAMWU vs Gert Sibande District Municipality September 2025 (Labour Appeal Court case number JA 64/23) the employer fired the employee for fraud because he had allegedly used his computer to access the employer’s cash portal. At the bargaining council the arbitrator found that the employee had not committed fraud but had rather been negligent in enabling others to misuse his computer by displaying his computer password on his desk. The arbitrator ordered reinstatement and replaced the sanction of dismissal with four months’ suspension without pay.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Labour Law Management Consulting</category>
            <pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2025 14:19:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>708626</a_id>
        <updated>1761567754</updated>
        <published>1761567540</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001234547_resized_llmc1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Don’t Shake the Procedural Tightrope</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/dont-shake-the-procedural-tightrope-2025-10-01</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Section 188 and Schedule 8 of the Labour Relations Act (LRA) were born from the constitutional right of accused employees to a fair chance to answer to the charges against them. The law entitles charged employees to sufficient opportunity to prepare for the disciplinary hearing, to testify on their own behalf, to bring corroborative evidence, cross examine the employer’s witnesses, use an interpreter, be represented and have an impartial chair. Employers that fail to ensure that all these rights are acceded to are likely to fall off the labour law tightrope.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Labour Law Management Consulting</category>
            <pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2025 09:48:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>706761</a_id>
        <updated>1759305049</updated>
        <published>1759304880</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001229119_resized_llmc1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>
