Tag: employees

Six office hacks to enhance productivity in the workplace

Great offices are not merely well decorated and thoughtfully designed, but also have a profound effect on workers’ productivity and their sense of well-being.

Richard Andrews, MD of Inspiration Office says, “It’s one of the main reasons why there’s a trend the world over for companies to make over their boring and old furniture by including stylish, pleasing chairs, couches and desks which is transforming utilitarian, drab spaces.”

Here’s how great office space can enhance productivity in the work place:

Boring furniture will make you lazy – and bored
Being surrounded with boring furniture, individuals oftentimes lose interest in work and lead to a drop in productivity “Even if we don’t think dull workplaces impact productivity they do by creating a subconscious listlessness that is associate with dreary surroundings,” Andrews says.

Vibrant colours bring enthusiasm
Lots of offices are choosing furniture and fittings in bright colours. “Bright colours assist in lifting a person’s mood. It’s a good way to alleviate stress, as well as increase productivity,” says Andrews.

Standing desks making your healthier
Several studies have discovered a link between the amount of time an individual spends sitting and her or his odds of developing diabetes, cancer and cardiovascular diseases.

For example, one 2010 Australian study, discovered that for every additional hour participants spent sitting on a daily basis, their overall threat of dying within the study period (7 years) increased by 11%.

Says Andrews: ”A 2012 study discovered that if the average person in America decreased her or his sitting time to 3 hours a day, life expectancy would increase by 2 years.”

Keep it clean, and orderly
“Cleanliness and order are very important factors for an office that feels good to work in,” noted Andrews. “ A disorganised office deprives workers of the enthusiasm and send a message than sloppiness is OK.”

A clean and orderly office, helps to keep workers comfortable and productive.

Fixed spaces for handy items
A good idea is to always keep things in their place, as well as keeping them handy.

“Often workers put off their work because they need to get up and go to an additional place for finishing the task or wonder around trying to find something like a stapler. Keeping items handy won’t just speed work up, but it also makes you more productive,” says Andrews.

Where possible let the daylight in
“We all know the uncomfortable feeling of being stuck in a windowless room under fluorescent lights during daylight hours,” says Andrews. “Lack of natural light has profoundly negative effect on people’s health and therefor productivity.”

In a study entitled Impact of Workplace Daylight Exposure on Sleep, Physical Activity, and Quality of Life researchers at the Neuroscience program at Northwestern University in Chicago, reported that the detrimental impact of working in a windowless environment is a universal phenomenon.

It concluded that there is a strong relationship between workplace daylight exposure and office workers’ sleep, activity and quality of life.

“Employees who did not have windows reported reduced scores than their counterparts upon life quality measures associated with vitality and physical problems. Also, they had poorer outcomes within measures of overall sleep efficiency, sleep quality, daytime dysfunction, as well as sleep disturbances,” Andrews added.

Furniture installed by Inspiration Office is created in South Africa by AngelShack. It is German designed but locally produced to international standards. All furniture is VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds such as adhesives and dyes) free, made from sustainable material and coated with anti-microbial finishing.

AngelShack is one of the first companies in the world to apply this anti-germ technology.

Dismissal for poor performance

While the law allows employers to decide what the proper standards of performance are, the employer will, if taken to the CCMA, be required to prove the fairness of the dismissal.

Employers must therefore ensure that their performance management systems and practices are designed to enable the employer to prove at arbitration that:

• The employee knew what the required performance standard was;

• The standard was realistically achievable;

• The employee was given sufficient opportunity to achieve the standard; and

• It was the employee’s fault that he/she failed to achieve the standard.

How must the employer’s systems be geared to provide legal proof in these four areas?

Did the employee know what the performance standard was?

The employee’s signed employment contract or performance agreement must spell out that, for example, that he/she is required to make 10 sales per month, reach 2 million rand turnover per year, pack 100 boxes per month or make 3 widgets per hour.

Was the standard achievable?

The employer’s formal records of actual past performance of the employee and others who have done the same work must clearly show that the agreed standard (e.g. 10 sales per month) has regularly been achieved and that therefore the standard is achievable and fair.

In the case of White vs Medpro Pharmaceutica (2000, 10 BALR 1182) the employee failed to meet her targets in nine out of ten months. The CCMA nevertheless found her dismissal to be unfair because the employer had set targets that were not achievable in the CCMA’s view.

Has the employee been given sufficient opportunity to achieve the standard?

The employer’s records relating to the employee’s performance must clearly show that, for example, the employee:

a) Has been given sufficient work to do to provide the necessary practice to become proficient
b) Has the time to get the work done properly.

Was it the employee’s fault that the performance standard was not met?

The employer’s performance monitoring records must show that:

• The employer has consistently provided the employee with the necessary work materials, training and equipment;

• The market demand for employer’s product has not reduced; or

• That there were no other reasons beyond the employee’s control for the employee’s poor work performance.

In Robinson vs Sun Couriers (2003, 1 BALR 97) the CCMA found Robinson’s dismissal to be unfair because the employer had neither established the reason for the poor performance nor brought any proof that the poor performance was the employee’s fault.

Employers must therefore be able to prove that they have:

• Set targets that are provably reasonable;

• Adjusted targets when new circumstances dictate this;

• Given employees a real chance to achieve the desired performance level; and

• Removed all obstructions to the achievement of the standards.

Thus the format of a good performance control system would be as follows:

• Details of the quantity, quality and time frame requirements of each employee;
• Proof that these standards have been achieved regularly;
• The nature of the specific tasks that the employee has been given during each performance period, the number of hours that the employee has been given to perform those tasks;
• The availability to the employee of all resources in good order needed for successful completion of the work; and
• The contact details of a reputable expert in labour law and performance management.

By Ivan Israelstam, chief executive of Labour Law Management Consulting

Many employers often find themselves in a predicament when employees resign without adhering to the notice periods stipulated in the contract of employment. In order to address the recourse available to employers, it is important to first look at what legislation prescribes for notice periods.

Notice periods

A reasonable notice period that either party in an employment relationship needs to abide by is derived from common law, however section 37 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (BCEA) has specifically developed the common law and makes specific provision for notice periods. Depending on the length of service of the employee, notice periods range from one (1) week, two (2) weeks or one (1) month, however it is common for companies to provide for notice periods which differ from the BCEA or any other relevant legislation including collective agreements. This is permitted only if the notice periods are not less than the periods stipulated in the relevant legislation. An employee may not be required to give longer notice than the employer. It is important to note that there are provisions whereby the notice periods are waived and that include matters of a constructive dismissal.

Employer’s remedies

Employees who fail to give notice as per the stipulated notice period are in breach of contract and the employer has specific remedies to compel the employee to adhere to the contractual obligations.

Order for specific performance

The first recourse is for the employer to refer the matter to the High Court to request an order compelling the employee to comply with the conditions of the employment contract (order for specific performance). In terms of section 77A (e) of the BCEA, the court may use its discretion whether or not to grant or deny an order for specific performance in terms of the reasonableness of the matter.

The court indicated in Nationwide Airlines (Pty) Ltd v Roedinger & another [2006] JOL 17221 (W) that the applicant was entitled to enforce the three (3) month notice period against the respondent, as the respondent only gave one (1) month’s notice. The respondent was deemed a professional employee and entered into the employment relationship on his own accord. The respondent was fully aware of the conditions in the contract of employment and that the agreed notice period had not been forced on him. The court furthermore took into consideration the potential operational risk as flights might have to be cancelled due to the airline not having a replacement for the respondent, who was the only pilot qualified to pilot a particular Boeing, which would have resulted in a substantial financial loss for the business.

In contrast, in Santos Professional Football Club (Pty) Ltd v Igesund & another [2002] JOL 10021 (C), the head coach of the professional football team indicated that he would like to resign due to another competitive offer of employment he received. The team referred the matter to the High Court and sought relief in terms of an order for specific performance. They deemed it unfair for the coach to breach the conditions stipulated in the fixed term contract purely because he received a better offer of employment.

The High Court had to take into consideration whether the order would be viable and appropriate. It was found that the coach would not be as committed as he ought to be, should he be compelled to adhere to his contract. The coach’s dignity as well as the employment relationship between the coach and management were taken into consideration. It was found that the working relationship was irreparably broken, therefore a future working relationship would not be viable. In this case the order for specific performance was denied.

Claim for damages

The second remedy for the employer is to terminate the employee’s contract and to sue for damages. Claiming for damages is not as easy as employers might envisage it to be due to employers being required to physically prove that there was harm caused as a result of the employee not serving notice. Employers cannot simply rely on the mere fact that the employee was in breach of the employment contract.

In Rand Water v Stoop & another (2013) 34 ILJ 576 (LAC), the court found that where employees have breached their contract of employment by failing to act in good faith, in relations to section 77(3) of the BCEA, the Court may decide whether or not the employer may claim for damages incurred as a result of the breach of contract.

In Aaron’s Whale Rock Trust v Murray and Roberts Ltd and Another [1992] 3 All SA 390 (C), the court held:

“Where damages can be assessed with exact mathematical precision, a plaintiff is expected to adduce sufficient evidence to meet this requirement. Where, as is the case here, this cannot be done, the plaintiff must lead such evidence as is available to it (but of adequate sufficiency) so as to enable the Court to quantify his damages and to make an appropriate award in his favour. The Court must not be faced with an exercise in guesswork; what is required of a plaintiff is that he should put before the Court enough evidence from which it can, albeit with difficulty, compensate him by an award of money as a fair approximation of his mathematically unquantifiable loss.”

Withholding statutory payment

In practice, employers find it frustrating and costly as the financial implication of referring the matter to court equals more than the physical harm caused by the employee not serving notice. Therefore employers have been advised to include a clause in the employment contract to specifically indicate that should an employee fail to serve their full notice period, the employer is entitled to withhold final remuneration until the employee serves such notice. This will compel employees to return to abide by their contractual obligations.

In the two key judgments of Singh v Adam (2006) 27 ILJ 385 (LC) and 3M SA (Pty) Ltd v SA Commercial Catering & Allied Workers Union & Others (2001) 22 ILJ 1092 (LAC) it was specifically held that the employment contract is a reciprocal contract to which these provisions apply. The employer can therefore refuse to pay out any final payments until the employee has rendered proper performance.

Conclusion
It is evident that employers have various remedies in place regarding employees who are in breach of contract in terms of serving their notice period as per the employment contract. The remedies of applying for an order of performance and claiming for damages will result in costs incurred and may not necessarily be successful. Employers are therefore advised to include a clause in their employment contract whereby the employer may withhold the amount equal to the required notice from the employee’s final statutory payments until the employee serves notice as agreed in the contract of employment.

Source: LabourNet

How the gig economy could shake up employment law

The gig economy has taken over the world, with most people not fully realising its impact. Put simply, the gig economy is a labour market characterised by freelance, flexible, on-demand work rather than the more traditional nine-to-five working model. Instead of being paid a regular salary, workers are paid for each “gig” they do, such as a car journey, food delivery or a cleaning job.

Typically, workers in the gig economy find jobs by registering on websites or apps and signing up for what they want to do. Around 15.6% of the UK’s workforce make up the gig economy. The figure is 34% in the US and expected to rise to 43% by the year 2020. South Africa will, no doubt, follow suit.

The major difference between the gig economy and traditional freelancing or contractual work is the flexibility and transparency that go with it. Gig freelancers can work from wherever they like, whenever they like and for whomever they like.

Timing of jobs is more spontaneous, and apps and websites now automatically connect people to deliver on requirements in real-time.

The major difference between the gig economy and traditional freelancing or contractual work is the flexibility and transparency that go with itBut how many of these gig workers prefer the work to permanent employment, and how many simply cannot find better pay or jobs elsewhere? With South Africa still recovering from recession and an unemployment rate of 27.7%, there’s no doubt that a lot of these “gigs” are performed because there is nothing better out there.

While some may argue that the gig economy empowers entrepreneurs, others argue that it is purely another means of exploiting workers. In most countries, only employees are entitled to the protection of employment legislation, such as being protected from unfair dismissal, and receiving minimum basic benefits such as holiday pay, sick leave and minimum working hours. Independent contractors are not offered such protection and their recourse is limited to what is contained in their service contracts.

UK test case
Last year in the UK, an employment tribunal ruled that Uber drivers are “workers”, and not self-employed contractors as their contracts stipulated. Uber has always maintained that it does not employ any drivers or own any cars. Instead, it provides the technology platform that enables the connection between driver and passenger. In the court case, judges held that the drivers are workers and should be given a basic set of rights under the law, including a national minimum wage. Uber appealed against this ruling, which was heard in September. A ruling is yet to be handed down.

In South Africa recently, the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) issued a ruling that seven Uber drivers who had been “deactivated” from the Uber platform and had subsequently referred unfair dismissal claims to the CCMA were not independent contractors but must be considered employees. This means these drivers are given employee protection in terms of the Labour Relations Act and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act. Uber South Africa has appealed the ruling and is currently awaiting judgment.

British prime minister Theresa MayWith the new world of work and the rise of the gig economy, the line between who is an employee and who is not is becoming increasingly blurred. But will this change how our courts view these types of workers in the future?

Seeming to shed light on this topic in the UK, the Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices was released in July this year with the hope of addressing the widespread deprivation of employment rights in the gig economy. Prime minister Theresa May had requested Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the Royal Society for the Arts, to conduct an independent review into how employment practices in the UK need to change to keep pace with modern business models.

Interestingly, the Taylor Review suggests that the UK government create a new category of worker, the “dependent contractor”, that sits between contractors and those in full employment, and brings with it some benefits and wage protections. It also called for the employment status to have a clearer definition that better reflects the reality of modern working arrangements.

Recommendations
Here are some of the review’s recommendations to the UK government in relation to gig workers:
It should develop legislation and guidance that adequately set out the tests that need to be met to establish employee or “dependent contractor” status.The national minimum wage legislation should be updated so that “dependent contractors” receive at least the national minimum wage, but on a piece-rate basis.

Under these rules, a gig company would have to demonstrate through its data that at times of normal demand, an average person could earn 20% more than the national minimum wage. However, if that person chose to work at a time of low demand, he or she might not earn the minimum wage; the company would have to use its real-time data to warn them of this in advance.

Government should provide maximum clarity on status and rights for all individuals, by extending the right to written particulars to all in employment. At the moment, employers only need to provide a written statement to employees that outlines their employment terms and conditions from the first day of employment. Workers are not entitled to such a statement.

The Taylor Review received a mixed response in the UK. While some have welcomed some of the proposals and agree that current legislation is no longer fit for purpose and needs updating, others have concerns that some of the proposals will materially increase costs and administration for employers.

The UK government will engage with stakeholders across the country before publishing a full response to the review later this year.

Although there are no immediate plans to revise the legislation to accommodate the gig economy, only time will tell as to whether or not a similar approach will be considered in South Africa.

By Amanda Arumugam for Tech Central

What you post can wreck your life

Harvard recently rescinded admission offers for some incoming freshmen who participated in a private Facebook group sharing offensive memes. The incident has sparked a lot of discussion: Was Harvard’s decision justified? What about the First Amendment? Do young people know the dangers of social media?

I’m a business school lecturer, career services counselor and former recruiter, and I’ve seen how social media becomes part of a person’s brand – a brand that can help you or hurt you.

College admissions staff, future employers and even potential dates are more and more likely to check your profile and make decisions or judgments about you.

Here’s what you should know so you don’t end up like those Harvard prospects.

1. Social media posts disappear, right?

Let’s be clear about one thing: You’ve been building your online reputation since your first Snapchat. Think the posts disappear? Think private pages are private? Think again.

You might feel like your life and opinions are no one’s business, but you can’t always control who sees what you post. Every photo, video, tweet, like and comment could be screenshotted by your friends (or frenemies). You might make a mistake with your privacy settings or post to the wrong account. And a determined online sleuth can sometimes find ways around privacy settings, viewing photos and posts you might think are well hidden.

2. Do employers and colleges actually look at this stuff?

Your profile will very likely be scrutinised by college admissions officers and employers. According to CareerBuilder’s 2017 social media recruitment survey, social media screening is through the roof:

  • 600% increase since 2006 in employers using social media to screen
  • 70% of employers use social networking sites to research job candidates
  • 34% of employers found online content that caused them to reprimand or fire an employee

This trend is common with admissions as well. Kaplan Test Prep’s 2017 survey of over 350 college admissions officers found that 35 percent checked applicants’ social media profiles. Many who do said social media has influenced their admission decisions.

3. What are recruiters watching out for?

So what are the potential hazards to avoid? These are some of the types of posts that left a bad impression on me when I used to recruit:

  • References to illegal drugs, sexual posts
  • Incriminating or embarrassing photos or videos
  • Profanity, defamatory or racist comments
  • Politically charged attacks
  • Spelling and grammar issues
  • Complaining or bad-mouthing – what’s to say you wouldn’t do the same to a new school, company, boss, or peer?

4. What can I do to build a positive online reputation?

Remember, social media is not all bad; in many cases it helps recruiters get a good feel for your personality and potential fit. The CareerBuilder survey found 44 percent of employers who screened candidates via social networks found positive information that caused them to hire a candidate.

From my experience, the following information can support and confirm a candidate’s resume:

  • Your education and experiences match the recruiter’s requirements
  • Your profile picture and summary is professional
  • Your personality and interests align with the values of the company or university
  • Your involvement in community or social organizations shows character
  • Positive, supportive comments, responses, or testimonials

5. How do I clean things up?

Research. Both the college of your dreams and your future employer could Google you, so you should do the same thing. Also check all of your social media profiles – even the ones you haven’t used for a while – and get rid of anything that could send the wrong message. Remember, things can’t be unseen.

Bottom line: Would you want a future boss, admissions officer, or blind date to read or see it? If not, don’t post it. If you already have, delete it.

By Thao Nelson; published on MSN.com 

Employees intend on taking advantage of their sick leave to stay away from work when in truth they really just can’t face a day in the office.

Almost 40% of South Africans are planning on “pulling a sickie” in June or July, according to a survey released by Pharma Dynamics on Monday.

The generic pharmaceutical company polled 1 500 workers across the country to find out how people were gearing up for the colds and flu season. However, respondents also let slip the time of year they are most likely to ring in sick, said Pharma Dynamics.

Bad weather coupled with colds and flu
A combination of miserable weather and the expected spate of colds and flu in winter makes June and July the most popular months of the year to take a duvet day, said Pharma Dynamics spokesperson Nicole Jennings.

“Nearly a third of those polled admitted that they’ve pulled a sickie before – 45% of whom said they do so two to three times a year, while a few chancers (15% in fact) do so even more often. The 40% whose conscience probably gets the better of them, can only bring themselves to do so once annually.”

Jennings said what makes matters even worse is that those who pretend to be sick don’t do so on their own.

“More than a whopping 51% rope in their partners and/or children to take a duvet day with them – 20% either didn’t have a partner or a child, which implied that if they did, they’d probably get them to bunk with them too. The remaining 29% preferred to do so solo.”

The result of sickness-related absenteeism on the economy has been enormous, according to the most recently available Adcorp Holdings’ employment index.

Cumulatively, since 2000 the economy lost R55.2bn in real terms due to sickness, the report dated 2013 shows.

The index found that between 2009 and 2011, one-quarter of all workers claimed the maximum statutory allowance for sick leave, which is 36 days in a three-year cycle. It showed that the average output per worker in 2012 was R145 233 per year – or R586.19 per working day. In 2011 this loss of output due to sickness totalled R4.29bn

At the time Adcorp said it was alarming that sick leave in South Africa had been rising continuously.

More recently, South Africa was ranked last among 19 nations in a global survey that measured healthcare system efficiency – the ability to deliver maximum results at the lowest possible cost.

The Future Health Index, commissioned by Dutch tech company Philips, showed that South Africa’s efficiency ratio was the lowest out of the 19 countries in the study, which included countries such as France, the US, Argentina, United Arab Emirates, China and Brazil.

South Africa scored 4.4 compared to the group average of 10.5.

Source: Fin24

Ignore Labour Law at your peril

Employers constantly complain that labour law does not allow them to fire employees for breaking the rules. However, employers need to understand that:

• Labour law definitely does allow employers to dismiss employees.

• The CCMA has frequently upheld the dismissal of employees fired for misconduct. We have been directly involved in a great many cases where employees have been fired and, after appealing to the CCMA, have remained fired.

• It is not the firing of employees that the law has a problem with. Instead, it is unfair dismissals that result in the employer being forced to reinstate the employee and/or being forced to pay the employee exorbitant amounts of money in compensation.

• In order to be free to fire employees who deserve dismissal employers need to understand and accept the difference between fair and unfair dismissal. This is because, if the employer has an employee who is causing mayhem or is costing the employer money or is otherwise undesirable, the employer cannot afford for the employee to be reinstated. The reason for this is that it is exceptionally difficult later to dismiss or discipline an employee who has been reinstated by the CCMA or other tribunal.

So while the law does allow dismissals it also requires the employer to be able to prove that the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively fair.

“Procedurally fair” relates to whether the employee was given a fair hearing.

Whether a dismissal is “substantively fair” relates to the fairness of the dismissal decision itself rather than to the disciplinary procedures. Specifically the employer would have to show that:

• The employee really did break the rule

• The rule was a fair one

• The penalty of dismissal was a fitting one in the light of the severity of the offence. AND

• The employee knew or should have known the rule.

Properly trained CCMA arbitrators consider all the above factors together with the circumstances of each individual case in deciding if a dismissal was fair and whether the employee should stay dismissed or should be reinstated.

In the case of Mundell vs Caledon Casino, Hotel and Spa (Sunday Times 15 May 2005) the employee was dismissed for two reasons. Viz:

• She distributed a R15000 tip amongst her colleagues
• She allowed a colleague to take home five cans of cool drink

It was reported that:

• The rule requiring employees to hand in tips to management to go into a monthly kitty had not been given to Mundell
• Mundell had no way of knowing that she was not allowed to distribute the tip money herself
• The tip had been given by the client at an open gathering
• A number of managers were involved in sharing out the tip
• The cool drinks had been intended by the client for consumption by the staff
• Giving the cool drinks to the employee was not serious enough to merit dismissal
• The employer’s failure to prove that the employee knew of this rule rendered the dismissal unfair
• The employer was required to pay the employee six months remuneration in compensation.

The outcome of this case proves that the inability of employers to make dismissals stick is not primarily because of the law but rather because of the lack of labour law expertise of many employers.

By  lvan lsraelstam, Chief Executive of Labour Law Management Consulting

The pitfalls of the office party

If it’s not on social media it hasn’t happened; a common belief among avid social-media users. But not every memorable experience deserves an Instagram video – especially if it is of you dancing on the table at your staff party, or taking on that infuriating colleague who has been working on your nerves all year.

Social media practitioners and labour lawyers warn that the embarrassment of being immortalised online could be just the beginning of your troubles as companies continue to test the parameters of labour law in relation to social-media use.

According to labour lawyer Terry Bell, employees would be liable for damages if they defamed their company in any way.

“And disciplinary action can be undertaken based on company rules,” said Bell.

Employees might see staff functions as an opportunity to let their hair down but they should remember that companies are not likely to forgive those who damage corporate reputations.

“At Christmas parties employees sometimes let more than their hair down and they should be very careful about what they put on social media,” said Bell.

Recruitment specialist Auguste Coetzer of Taleng Africa said the tone should to be set by companies.

Coetzer said companies should take stock and establish the objectives of the party and whether it should take place at all, adding that awards ceremonies might create division.

“If broad recognition of team success is crucial, the firm will avoid the mistake of combining the occasion with a prize-giving for exceptional performers. You can’t celebrate everyone and reward a few stellar achievers at the same event,” he said.

Coetzer said companies should not be afraid to warn employees about company policy on social media.

Head of corporate and experiential events at Event Affairs Megan Mcilrath said it was important to thank employees for a great year and not leave social media education to the eve of an event.

“It’s important that companies entrench a social-media and general behaviour policy so that at any stage employees know what is and what isn’t allowed regarding social media,” said Mcilrath.

Social-media consultant Sheena Kretzmer said companies and employees should be prepared for the fallout of staff parties in a social-media age in which live video blogging is the norm.

By Shenaaz Jamal for www.timeslive.co.za

A recent survey of 12 000 office workers nationwide has revealed the most important things we demand from our workplaces.

The survey also uncovered the things we like best and hate most about the place where we spend a third of our lives.

Richard Andrews, MD of Inspiration Office, says the poll threw up some surprising findings.

“We asked people what was the most important thing for them in the workplace and 95% said access to good tea and coffee.

“This topped the list ahead of security (91%) and a healthy environment (87%) of what South African see as most important in the workplace.”

Rounding out the most important things was natural light (85%), greenery (71%), canteens (65%) and comfortable chairs (52%).

“Essentially it’s all the smaller things that people really need to be happy in the workplace,” says Andrews.

The poll also quizzed people on their biggest annoyances at the workplace.

Top of the list was loud colleagues, followed by colleagues who “smelled up the place” by eating lunch at the desk.

Third was ‘unbearable bosses.’

“It seems as many offices move to open plan design, the trend of squeezing more people into less space has brought workers in closer proximity to each other. There is nowhere to hide from other peoples’ habits.

“People talking loudly on the phone, endlessly talking to colleagues and making a general ruckus (88%) topped the list of the biggest peeve.

“This was followed closely by people who eat lunch at their desks thereby smelling up the workspace (76%).”

Andrews added that bad bosses (66%) was in third place particularly those that were hyper-critical and micro managers. Lack of privacy also featured with just over 50% citing that as an office downside.

Other strong office dislikes were dreary office spaces, long meetings, dress codes and working hours.

When asked about the best things about the workplace, the social aspect of meeting new people and becoming friends with certain colleagues was the best thing about the workplaces according to 80% of respondents.

Also favourable was the ‘learning and personal development’ that the workplaces offered (61%) and this was followed by ‘a place to make money’ at 49%.

Filling out the remaining office positives was ‘stimulation’, ‘sense of worth’ and ‘contribution to society.’

Andrews says that more businesses in South Africa were moving to address concerns such as those highlighted by the survey.

“Quiet spaces, places to make private calls and a trend towards more comfortable and relaxed spaces will improve the day to day office experience.”

One would think that if an employee is found to be under the influence of alcohol at work it is a straightforward dismissible offence. Recent case law has shown that this is not necessarily so.

Employers often operate under the mistaken belief that testing positive for alcohol equates to the employee being under the influence of alcohol.
Alcohol and drug abuse is a form of misconduct. Schedule 8 of the Code of Good Practice of the Labour Relations Act, No 66 of 1995 (LRA) recognises misconduct by an employee as a fair reason for dismissal.

There are two scenarios in which an employee may be charged for their use of alcohol at the workplace:

The first scenario is where the employee’s drunkenness can be proven by sight, smell and/or the conduct of the
employee. Factors showing drunkenness include aggressive behaviour from the employee, slurred speech and bloodshot eyes. The degree of drunkenness has to be to such an extent that it impairs the employee’s ability to work. The onus is on the employer to prove this. No expert witness is required for such purposes.

The second scenario is where an employee tests positive for alcohol on a breathalyser apparatus. A positive outcome does not necessarily prove that the employee is under the influence of alcohol or that the employee’s ability to work has been impaired. Employers often mistakenly believe that a positive test result is sufficient proof to show that the employee was under the influence of alcohol and then mistakenly charge the employee for being under the influence of alcohol. Recent case law has confirmed that a positive test result is not necessarily sufficient to dismiss an employee. In Tosca Labs v CCMA 2012 33 ILJ 1738 (LC) the Labour Court found that a positive test result on a breathalyser test is not sufficient proof to indicate that the employee was under the influence of alcohol. The court referred to Tanker Services (Pty) Ltd v Magudulela 1997 12 BLLR 1552 (LAC) which stated that the real test is whether the employee’s competence to perform their work has been impaired. In this case the employee was able to perform his tasks and the court held that the dismissal was substantively unfair.

What should an employer do?

• The employer should adopt a zero tolerance in terms of its alcohol policy in the workplace. Such policy should be specific and also provide for a summary dismissal, even when the employee has just been tested positive for the use of alcohol or drugs. The rational for such policy should be based on the safety considerations of the employer. This means that an employee may be summarily dismissed irrespective of whether his/her ability to work is impaired or not. To adopt such a policy depends on the status thereof and may sometimes simply require consulting with the employees before the implementation of such policy. The employer should always ensure that all employees are aware that there is a zero tolerance policy and that if they test positive for any usage of alcohol, they will be in breach of the policy and may be subjected to disciplinary action and possible dismissal.

• In addition to the above, the breathalyser apparatus should be properly calibrated and the person administering the test should be trained to do so correctly. The test should also always be done in the presence of a witness.

• However where possible and applicable, evidence should preferably be obtained to show that the employee’s ability to work was impaired – if that was indeed the case.

• If it emerges that an employee is dependent on alcohol the employer has an obligation to consider providing counselling and assist the employee as is set out in item 10 of Schedule 8 of the LRA.

  • 1
  • 2

Follow us on social media: 

               

View our magazine archives: 

                       


My Office News Ⓒ 2017 - Designed by A Collective


SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
Top