Tag: labour law

Source: Fin24

A landmark court ruling by the Constitutional Court that decriminalised the private and personal use of cannabis could leave employers in a pickle when it comes to health and safety in the workplace, experts have said.
This is because it may be difficult to determine for certain whether an employee is under the influence of cannabis or not when they come to work, which could have implications – particularly for employees performing potentially hazardous work.

The Occupational Health and Safety Act states that no person who is or appears to be intoxicated may enter or remain at a workplace. They may also not have in their possession, partake of, or offer any other person intoxicating liquor or drugs, it adds.

The exception is medicine, where the employer may only allow them to perform their duties if the side effects are not a threat to anybody’s health or safety.

Why it’s hard to test for cannabis
Gerhard Roets, Construction Health & Safety Manager at the Master Builders Association North, says the cannabis ruling left the construction industry scratching heads over how to ensure employee safety.
“In practical terms, the issue for employers is how to determine whether workers are under the influence of cannabis or not when they come to work.”

This is because the metabolism of cannabis is complex. Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the psychoactive substance in cannabis that provides the “high”.

Hemp oils derived from cannabis seeds are used medicinally – the health benefits are associated with the non-psychoactive cannabidol (CBD). But hemp products may contain some THC, which could also show up in drug tests.
Furthermore, a standard urine test just screens for the metabolites of cannabis, which can show up long after the psychoactive effects have worn off.

All this means is that a positive test may not reveal anything that incriminates the employee.

“One needs to understand that the Court’s ruling only decriminalises the possession, consumption and private cultivation of cannabis for private use in a private space. This means that employers remain responsible for providing and maintaining a work environment that is safe for all,” says Roets.

The Master Builders Association believes the main issue is that there is not an effective, standardised testing method available that can be used across industries.

“Until the testing issue is resolved, and the state of being ‘under the influence of cannabis’ is medically defined, employers will have to tread carefully,” says Roets.

But do you need a test?
Labour lawyer Michael Bagraim, also a DA MP and the party’s spokesperson on labour, says regardless of grey areas around testing, employers will have to rely on good old-fashioned observation for now – and employees should be aware that they don’t need a positive test in order to risk dismissal.

“Just like alcohol, cannabis intoxication is not acceptable at the workplace,” he told Fin24.

“On many occasions, and there have been many cases to this effect, the dismissal takes place after physical interpretation of intoxication. For instance, with alcohol you would notice slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, erratic behaviour and even breath smelling of alcohol. On the strength of the witness who notices this, a disciplinary inquiry is held and the individual can be dismissed.”

He says it is “slightly more difficult” with cannabis, but “you can palpably see if someone is intoxicated or not”.

“An eye witness is often stronger than the outcome of a positive result in a test,” he explains. “On many occasions an employee refuses a test and you cannot force someone. Also, cannabis can be detected for over a month after its use. A person might not be intoxicated but will still fail the test. A much stronger argument is an individual noticed to be intoxicated, with erratic behaviour.”

Professor Halton Cheadle, partner at specialist labour law firm BCHC, told media earlier this month that companies may have to reconsider their policies that deal with substance abuse. It’s important to review policies to ensure employers are equipped to take care of their employees’ safety, Cheadle said.

By Ivan Israelstam, chief executive of Labour Law Management Consulting

Xenophobia deters many South African employers from employing immigrants. However, many other employers are not at averse to employing aliens whether they are in the country legally or illegally.

Some of the reasons for the high number of illegal immigrants gaining employment in South Africa include:

• Job seekers from outside our borders provide potential employers with false identity documents or work permits

• Employers do not always think of asking prospective employees for proof of their right to work here

• Other employers, aware of the holes in the law enforcement system in South Africa, close a blind eye to such legal requirements because they couldn’t be bothered

• Some employers believe that an illegal immigrant will be more likely to do his/her work properly and obey the employer’s rules for fear of being reported to the Department of Home Affairs

• Illegal immigrants are often willing to accept lower remuneration than is paid to legal employees

• Employees without legal papers are often more willing to accept poor treatment, transfers to out of the way locations, extra work and not being registered for unemployment insurance

• Many skills are difficult to find in South Africa and many employers do not care whether they obtain these skills legally or illegally.

It is therefore not surprising that so many employers turn a blind eye to the law’s requirements. However, they do this at their peril because the courts have the power under the Immigration Act to repatriate illegal immigrants and to impose heavy fines on offending employers.

Immigration legislation very strictly prohibits the employment of foreign nationals unless extremely stringent, rigid and unrealistically lengthy procedures are first carried out. That is, the employer is, before employing an immigrant, required to prove that it has done everything in its power to recruit a South African into the post in question and that no such South Africans are available. By the time the employer has dragged itself through this time consuming process the foreign national with the rare skills has accepted a job in another country. These restrictive regulations are, under the latest amendments, currently becoming even more rigid and draconian.

What then must employers do when they discover that some employees are working illegally? Such employers obviously need to terminate the employment of such employees. However, what is not so obvious is how the employer should go about such terminations.

An employer cannot dismiss a suspected illegal alien before checking up on these suspicions. This is because, if the employee is incorrectly fired for being illegal, it may constitute an unfair dismissal and/or unfair discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity. This could result in the employer having to pay the employee compensation up to the equivalent of 24 months remuneration.

The wise employer’s first step is to investigate thoroughly all allegations that employees are working illegally.

Secondly, especially where the employee’s status is unclear, the employer should hold a hearing to establish the truth of the matter before firing the employee. This will give a properly qualified chairperson the opportunity to look thoroughly into the legality of the employee’s status.

Thirdly, where the hearing proves that the employee is working illegally the chairperson should end the employment relationship making it clear that this has been done purely for reasons of immigration law.

By Ivan Israelstam, chief executive of Labour Law Management Consulting

Employers are entitled to use confessions as evidence in disciplinary hearings.

However, just because an employee makes a confession this does not allow the employer to fire the employee on the spot.

This is because:

• Even where the employee does confess s/he is still entitled to a proper hearing

• The confession may have been coerced

• The employee may not have understood what he was doing when he/she signed the confession

• The act to which the employee confessed may not amount to misconduct serious enough infringement to merit dismissal.

• The CCMA might find, for technical reasons, that the confession was invalid.

We need to look at each of these factors more closely:

Even where the employee does confess he/she is still entitled to proper procedure

The Labour Relations Act (LRA) gives employees the unassailable right to a hearing and not even a confession of murder will allow the employer to deviate from this principle.

Even where the employee properly confesses to an act of misconduct it may not be a serious enough infringement to merit dismissal

Dismissal would be unfair where the employee admits to having arrived half an hour late for work especially if this is a first or second offence because dismissal must be reserved for repeated offences or for gross misconduct.

The CCMA might find, for technical reasons, that the confession was invalid

For example, in the case of FAWU obo Sotyato vs JH Group Retail Trust (2001, 8, BALR 864) the employee signed a confession that he had stolen two bottles of beer. However, the CCMA ruled out this confession on the grounds that it had not been sworn before a commissioner of oaths.

The confession may not have been made willingly

If the confession was made under duress it will not qualify as a confession at all. At best it will constitute a meaningless statement coerced out of the employee; and at worst it will act as proof that the employer was seeking a scapegoat or was trying to concoct a false case against the employee as a means of getting rid of him/her for unacceptable reasons.

The employee may not have understood what he was doing when s/he signed the confession

The employee may be asked to sign a confession document but may, for example, think he/she is signing acknowledgement of receipt of a notice of a disciplinary hearing. Should this be proven the confession will become invalid.

Confessions that are properly made and wisely used can be valuable at disciplinary hearings. The challenge for the employer is therefore to obtain the expertise necessary to ensure that once a confession is made that it sticks and is appropriately used.

Employers: beware of unfair labour practices

By Ivan Israelstam, chief executive of Labour Law Management Consulting

Section 186(2) of the LRA defines “Unfair labour Practice” as “any unfair act or omission that arises between an employer and an employee involving-

(a) unfair conduct by the employer relating to the promotion, demotion, probation or training of an employee or relating to the provision of benefits to an employee);
(b) the unfair suspension of an employee or any other unfair disciplinary action short of dismissal in respect of an employee;
(c) a failure or refusal by an employer to reinstate or re-employ a former employee in terms of any agreement; and
(d) an occupational detriment, other than dismissal, in contravention of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2000 on account of the employee having made a protected disclosure defined in that Act.”

The word “unfair” is mentioned several times in the above definition. For example, under part (b) of the definition the section mentions “…any other unfair disciplinary action…” However, without an explanation of what ‘unfair’ means the entire definition of an unfair labour practice is meaningless. For example, there are many fair actions relating to discipline and many unfair ones. How do we distinguish between these? In addition to the definition of ‘unfair’ that I proposed above it is useful to examine the way in which arbitrators attempting to resolve labour disputes decide whether an act of an employer is fair or unfair.

In the case of Bosman vs SA Police Services (2003 5 BALR 523) Bosman and a black female had been shortlisted as candidates for promotion. The selection committee decided that the black female should be promoted for reasons of population group representivity. However, the committee was unable to prove at arbitration:

  • That the appointment of the black female would have promoted representivity and
  • That the black female was the best suited candidate

In the light of this the arbitrator found that the failure to promote Bosman was unfair and ordered the employer to promote her. The ‘unfairness’ decision here was made on the basis that:

  • Bosman had been proven to be the best candidate and therefore had the right to be promoted and
  • The decision to promote the black female was inappropriate because she was not the best candidate and there was no proof that her promotion would have served the purpose of affirmative action.

At the root of many “unfair” practices is the employer’s attempt to gain something. There is nothing wrong per se with an employer gaining something, as long as the employee or job candidate does not lose out unfairly as a result. Thus, an employer is entitled to protect its interests or save money by disciplining an employee or changing the employee’s benefits provided that the discipline is merited or the loss to the employee is justified.

As always, the challenge for the employer is to judge when its actions are merited and justified. Due to the complexity of the law such judgement cannot be done via guesswork. Every employer must therefore obtain comprehensive and in-depth expertise in labour law via the use of a reputable labour law expert and via training of all levels of management in the application of labour law.

The meaning of ‘unfair’

By Ivan Israelstam, chief executive of Labour Law Management Consulting 

The Labour Relations Act (LRA), born from the Constitution, provides that “every employee has the right not to be-
(a) unfairly dismissed; and
(b) subjected to unfair labour practice.”

Section 187 of the LRA provides that a dismissal is automatically unfair if it has an unfair reason. The section then lists the reasons for dismissal that would be unfair. For example, if the employee was fired because he/she had exercised his right to take action against the employer in terms of the LRA, this retaliatory dismissal would be automatically unfair. Again, we have an example of the employer’s interference with an employee’s right being defined as “unfair”.

‘Unfair’ is one of the most frequently used terms in labour law. The CCMA receives tens of thousands of referrals each year from employees claiming unfair treatment at the hands of their employers. It is therefore most surprising that this term is not defined in any of the statutes. The result of this is that the decision as to what is “unfair” has to be made by trade unions, employees, employers, judges, arbitrators, and legal practitioners in each individual case where unfairness is being alleged.

While the legal meaning of the term ‘unfair’ is extremely illusive every employer needs to have a proper grasp of the legal meaning of “unfair” in order to avoid the legal repercussions of doing anything unfair to its employees.

Section 188 of the LRA deems a dismissal to be unfair, even if it is not automatically unfair, if the employer fails to prove-
(a) that the reason for the dismissal is a fair reason; and
(b) that the dismissal was effected in accordance with a fair procedure.

This section explains neither what is meant by “a fair reason” nor what a “fair procedure” is. However, common law has established guidelines in these regards and these guidelines have been codified in Schedule 8 of the LRA. For example, item 7(b) includes a requirement that any person deciding whether a misconduct dismissal was fair must, amongst other things determine whether the dismissal was an appropriate sanction for the contravention of the rule that was contravened by the employee.

The word “appropriate” here again gives us a clue to what is “unfair”. That is, if the employer’s decision or action is inappropriate it could be unfair in labour law. The word “appropriate” in a labour law context implies that the employer’s action must be appropriate in the context of the specific situation in which the action was taken. Another way of putting this is that “the punishment must fit the crime”. If the employee is fired for a minor infringement or where circumstances reduce his/her liability a dismissal would usually be inappropriate and therefore unfair.

In summary, the act of an employer would be seen to be unfair if it is one-sided, unnecessary and/or inappropriate under the circumstances or infringes the employee’s rights. As employees have a vast number of very strong labour law rights employers need to ensure they understand these rights. They need to avoid taking any action affecting employees before checking with their labour law expert that it would be safe to take such action and how to go about it.

Be prepared for con-arb at the CCMA

By Ivan Israelstam, chief executive of Labour Law Management Consulting

The CCMA hears over 180 000 cases a year. This can result in backlogs and delays in resolution of disputes. As a consequence the law provides for a speedier dispute resolution process called con-arb, which stands for conciliation-arbitration.

Regardless of whether con/arb is applied the process always begins with conciliation. This is a peace-making process whereby a CCMA or bargaining council (BC) mediator tries to assist the employer and employee to reach an out-of-court agreement and a quick resolution of the dispute. The conciliating commissioner has no authority to make an award (judgement).

On the other hand arbitration is a judicial-type process that usually occurs if a conciliated settlement is not achieved. At arbitration the employer and employee do not negotiate an agreement. Instead, they bring and present evidence as in any court case so that the arbitrator can make a finding.

Con-arb is when, instead of scheduling the arbitration for a later date, it is held on the same day, the very minute that conciliation fails! Thus, the parties have no time after the conciliation meeting to prepare their evidence and arguments for the arbitration!

Therefore, on receiving any con-arb notice a party who does not want con-arb must lodge a formal objection at least 7 days in advance of the set hearing date. However, such an objection will not be valid if the dispute concerns an unfair dismissal relating to probation or an unfair labour practice relating to probation.

As mentioned, the purpose of con-arb is to cut down drastically the time period between conciliation and arbitration. It could also have the effect of forcing the parties to make every effort in trying to settle the matter at conciliation. This is because they are aware of the arbitration that will take place immediately conciliation fails.

It is essential for employers and employees who receive con-arb notices to:

• Realise straight away that it is a con-arb that has been scheduled
• Understand what con-arb means for them in practice
• Begin immediately with preparations for the con-arb.

This is particularly so because the parties seldom get more than 14 days advance notice of a con-arb.

The parties need to enter into intensive preparations the moment they receive a con-arb notification because:

• 14 days is very little for purposes of preparation
• The parties have to prepare for both conciliation and for arbitration
• Preparation for arbitration in particular takes a great deal of time.

Included in these preparations should be:

• The preparation of the witnesses of truthful, relevant and accurate testimonies
• Collecting and preparing documentary and other evidence
• Responses to anticipated evidence that the opposing party could bring
• Preparation of case arguments and case law.

Buckshot dismissals are risky

By lvan lsraelstam, chief executive of Labour Law Management Consulting

Frequently employers know that serious misconduct has occurred but are unable to prove which employee or employees are responsible. This can occur in a variety of circumstances.

For example:

• Stock may go missing from a warehouse or retail store where any of a number of employees had access to the stock and opportunity to remove it

• Damage may have been caused to business machinery in a workshop used by numerous employees

• Confidential information may have been leaked

• There may be cash shortages in tills or other cash storage points

Employers are often tempted in such cases to discipline everyone who could possibly have been involved in such misconduct. This buckshot approach by employers may be motivated by a number of factors including the thinking that:

• If we fire the lot we will be sure to get rid of the culprit

• Some case law has given the impression that such group dismissals may be justified

In the case of NUSFRAW obo Gomez & others vs Score Supermarkets (2003, 8 BALR 925) a group of managers were dismissed as a result of stock losses amounting to six million rand. While there was no proof that these managers were guilty they were fired. The CCMA arbitrator found that the poor management of the business by the dismissed employees had led to the losses and that this justified the dismissal.

Again in the case of FEDCRAW vs Snip Trading (Pty) Ltd the arbitrator ruled in favour of group dismissals. Here, the employer had a policy which held every employee responsible for stock losses. When stock disappeared several employees were fired despite the absence of direct evidence of their guilt.

The arbitrator found that the concept of group responsibility for stock losses was not unfair under the circumstances.

The outcomes of these two cases have misled a number of employers into believing that group dismissals are inherently fair. However, this will only hold true in exceptional circumstances. It will depend on the extent to which the employees specifically have responsibility for prevention of losses and have the means of preventing losses. It will also depend on the viewpoint of each individual arbitrator.

For example, in NUM & Others vs RSA Geological Services (2004, 1 BALR 1) fifteen employees were dismissed after kimberlite was found dumped down a borehole. The CCMA upheld the dismissal of five of the employees because there was some evidence of their individual guilt. However, the arbitrator ordered the reinstatement of the other ten employees as there was insufficient proof that they had been implicated in the dumping of the kimberlite.

Again in SAGAWU obo Cingo & Another vs Pep SA Limited (2004, 10 BALR 1262) the entire staff of one of the employer’s stores were dismissed for stock losses. The CCMA found that the group dismissal was unfair because the employer had failed to prove that the dismissed employees were guilty of misconduct. The dismissed employees were reinstated with full retrospective effect.

The apparent lack of consistency in case law and the powerful laws protecting employees from unfair dismissal sound a strong warning to employers not to act against employees before they fully understand their legal rights. The correct actions of the employer will differ from case to case depending on a number of legal subtleties and interpretations.

Source: Supermarket & Retailer 

The National Assembly officially passed the new National Minimum Wage (NMW) Bill at the end of May – nearly a full month after it was due to come into effect.

The bill sets a minimum wage of R20 per ordinary hour worked. This wage will be reviewed within 18 months of the commencement of the NMW Act and will be adjusted within two years of the commencement of the Act. Assuming a 45-hour week this equates to R3,900 per month.

While the minimum wage cannot be waived, and will take precedence over a contrary provision of a contract of employment, there is now the looming question among many South Africans on how the executive will manage the implementation of the bill.

According to a new commentary note published by VDMA Attorneys, the Department of Labour responded to this question in May by stating that, if and when the bill is passed, additional resources will be required to ensure that employers comply with the minimum standards.

However, it noted that, as it stands, the department does not have sufficient resources to assign labour inspectors to visit every workplace.

“The director general of the department has outlined a number of strategies to support compliance with the National Minimum Wage,” said VDMA.

“As the first port of call, they expect workers and unions to come forward and inform the department of non-compliance.

“There is also an obligation on the employers to ensure that they comply. Another initiative is what the department calls ‘blitz inspections’, which is an effort to focus on areas which are infamous for non-compliance with labour regulations. The department will issue compliance orders to those who do not conform to the National Minimum Wage,” it said.

It adds that the NMW will also be incorporated into the Basic Conditions of Employment Amendment Bill, which it also extends the jurisdiction of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA).

“Labour inspectors now have the power to refer disputes relating to non-compliance to the to the CCMA and to appear at the CCMA in these disputes,” it said.

“The CCMA will have the power to make a compliance order issued by an inspector, an arbitration award, which award will carry the same weight as an order issued from the Labour Court.”

By Ivan Israelstam, chief executive of Labour Law Management Consulting 

South African labour legislation gives employees a plethora of rights against the employer. So much so that many employers wonder whether the resultant burden on them makes it worth continuing to run the business.

For example, employees have, amongst others, the right to:

• Join trade unions
• Go on strike
• Procedural fairness at disciplinary hearings
• A fair reason for dismissal
• Protection form unfair demotions
• Be promoted under certain circumstances
• Minimum wages in many cases
• Sick leave, holiday leave, maternity leave and compassionate leave
• Overtime pay
• Consistent treatment
• Protection from unfair discrimination
• Representation at CCMA by a trade union representative

On the other hand, labour legislation gives employers few rights; and those that they do have are very restricted. That is, employers may exercise limited rights as long as, in doing so, they do not infringe the numerous rights given to employees.

However, one area that employers can exercise their rights is that of fiduciary duty. This means that the employee has, in certain ways, the duty to put the employer’s interests first. This does not mean that the employee must, as a way of benefiting the employer, forfeit his/her rights to leave, legal working hours or fair discipline. It does mean that the employee may not advantage himself/herself unfairly at the expense of the employer.

Specifically, this means that the employee may not:

• Place him/herself in a position where his/her interests conflict with those of the employer
• Make a secret profit at the expense of the employer
• Receive a bribe or commission from a third party
• Misuse the employer’s trade secrets
• Give a third party the employer’s confidential information.

While this principle applies generally to employees it applies more strongly to senior employees. In deciding on the extent of fiduciary duty that an employee has the courts consider a number of factors including:

• The degree of freedom that the employee has to exercise discretion in making and executing business decisions
• The opportunity for the employee to exercise this discretion in his/her own interests
• The extent to which the specific circumstances open the employer to abuse of the employee’s discretion
• The extent to which the employer relies on the employee for expertise and judgement in conducting the business
• The extent to which the employee is in a position of trust.

Clearly, the more junior the employee the less these fiduciary factors are likely to prevail. That is, with some exceptions, junior employees normally do not have the right or duty to make crucial business decisions or the opportunity to misuse decision-making power.

The line between who is a senior employee and who is not and the line between who is in a position of trust and who is not are blurred. Whether, for example, a junior salesperson is in a position of trust or not depends on the specific circumstances of each case. Therefore, in order to protect itself from employees acting against the employer’s interests every employer should:

• Build in checks and balances that prevent the abuse of power
• Inform all employees of their fiduciary duties in relation to their positions of trust
• Make sure employees at all levels know the seriousness of breach of their fiduciary duties
• Take swift, fair and consistent action against employees who breach their fiduciary duties
• Obtain expert legal advice before acting against suspects.

Government amends UIF Bill

A new Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) Bill has been signed into law which will see improved benefits for employees.

The purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Act, No 63 of 2001 is to provide for the payment from the Fund of unemployment benefits to certain employees and for the payment of illness, adoption, maternity and dependents’ benefits related to the unemployment of such an employee.

Among several amendments, the bill:

  • Increases UIF benefits from 238 to 365 days
  • Allows employees to apply over 12 months instead of six
  • Allows employees to apply for maternity leave benefits eight weeks before delivery and up to 12 months after birth
  • Sees a flat rate for maternity benefits (66% of a female employee’s salary)
  • Let’s the female employee who have lost their child in the last trimester qualify for maternity benefits
  • Grants people on learnerships to apply for benefits
  • UIF benefits will not be stopped when a beneficiary dies, but will be paid out to their dependents.
  • Claims from the UIF can be made for longer period

Prior to these amendments, the employee were only able to claim from the UIF for 238 days’ work. Now it is possible to claim from the UIF for 365 days work. These benefits may be claimed over 12 months instead of the previous six months.

Dependents benefits

Dependents’ benefits can be claimed by the spouse or minor children of someone who has died, who had been paying UIF contributions to the Fund.

The dependents of a deceased breadwinner now have up to 18 months in which to apply for the dependent benefit.

This is especially positive for those in low-income jobs because they often learn about such benefits being available to them long after the breadwinner has died, and traditionally in many black communities, widows are not allowed to be outside their homes for long periods while they are in mourning, which takes anything from six months or longer.

Another change is that there is now a provision that allows contributors to the Fund with no dependents to nominate beneficiaries of their choice in the event of death, provided the deceased had no spouse, life partner or dependent children.

Illness benefits

Illness benefits can be claimed if the employee is off work for two weeks due to illness and will not receive a salary from the employer. This has now been changed to seven days, meaning the employee can now claim for illness benefits if they are off work for seven days.

New additions

Learners who were on ‘learnership’, Public Servants and Foreign Nationals are now able to claim for UIF benefits.

Now let’s have a look at the changes to the Maternity Benefit and how they will impact Employees.

Maternity

Previously the employee had six months in which to claim for maternity benefits, meaning that if six months passed before the employee claims, the employee was unable to put in a claim. The time in which the employee can put in a claim has now been increased to 12 months. This means that the employee now has a year within which the employee can submit the employer application for benefits.

If the employee has claimed for maternity benefits before, the employee will recall that if the employee had claimed for any type of benefits within a four-year cycle, such as unemployment, this negatively affected the employee when the employee applied for maternity benefits during this four-year period because the employee would not be able to claim for full maternity benefits.

Fortunately, this has changed and now the employee claim for any other benefits would not affect the employee’s ability to claim for full maternity benefits.

A fixed rate of 66% of a female employee’s salary (instead of the current sliding scale of between 38% and 60%), has now been introduced, subject to the maximum income threshold as set out in the Act.

The following also applies:

Full maternity benefits can now be claimed by female employees who had miscarriages in their third trimester. The contributor is entitled to benefits for 17-32 weeks. To claim, the contributor must have been employed for 13 weeks prior to claiming the maternity-related UIF benefit.

Application for benefits can now be made before or after the birth of a child – but no later than 12 months after the birth of the child.

And after a traumatic experience of losing a child – this may go a long way towards providing the support and time to recuperate.

Source: Labour Net

  • 1
  • 2

Follow us on social media: 

               

View our magazine archives: 

                       


My Office News Ⓒ 2017 - Designed by A Collective


SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
Top