Tag: employees

By Sentleeng Lehihi for SABC News

The North West Labour Department says the recently Amended Consolidated Direction on Occupational Health and Safety Measures in Certain Workplaces cannot be used to force workers to vaccinate.

The department insists that workers who are unfairly dismissed for refusing to vaccinate must report the matter to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) if no internal process is available.

This follows a SABC News report where Tyeks Security Services employees alleged that their employer had informed them that it is mandatory for all workers to be vaccinated for COVID-19.

Last week, a SABC News item highlighted the plight of Tyeks Security Service employees, who raised concern about being forced to vaccinate.

“We received a letter forcing us to get vaccinated whether we like it or not, failing which, you lose your job and the way the president spoke he was clear that the vaccination is voluntary. Vaccination should not be mandatory,” said one of the workers.

“My one question is what will happen to my health when I get vaccinated unwillingly because I always have complications because of my chronic condition,” said another worker.

Labour legislation

While vaccinations remain voluntary, the Labour Department recently released an Amended Consolidated Direction on Occupational Health and Safety Measures in Certain Workplaces, to provide guidelines for employers to make vaccinations mandatory.

According to the new directions, while not every employee poses a risk of transmission of severe disease, the employer can determine whether an employee is required to be vaccinated by identifying those employees who pose a risk of transmission or risk of severe COVID-19 disease or death due to their age or co-morbidities.

Vaccination is not mandatory

Provincial Chief Inspector for the Labour Department, Boikie Mampuru says employees have the right to refuse to be vaccinated.

“Any employer obviously wants to make the operation to be efficient. In that sense, he must then develop a risk assessment that will mitigate against COVID-19. What we are saying is that if there is an employer who wants to force people to be vaccinated, the dispute can be handled internally. If there are no dispute mechanisms, the employee has a right to lodge for an unfair dismissal, which normally is handled by one of the entities of the Department of Labour which is CCMA.”

North West Health Department Spokesperson, Tebogo Lekgethoane, echoes the same sentiments.

“To date vaccination is not mandatory in South Africa. However, the department encourages vaccination in order to attain population immunity. People who are vaccinated stand a better chance of resisting the severity of the illness if they do contract the virus. The understanding is that even the new occupational health and safety measures do not make vaccines mandatory.”

The confusion created by amended legislation

Labour Analyst, Mamokgethi Molopyane says the ambiguities in the new directions have created more confusion than solutions.

“When there is no clarity and instead of clarity there is ambiguity. Where it is open for interpretation, often what happens is that the employer will simply say that, ‘Well, I am enforcing it as I see fit per my company or my workplace but also in the industry that I work in’. And so that leaves many workers vulnerable to being compelled or forced by the employer to be vaccinated, to show the proof of vaccination.”

Tyeks Security Services’ response to allegations

In a written response, the legal services manager of Tyeks Security Services Jethro Makaye has refuted claims by employees that the directive to vaccinate is a ploy not to renew their contracts. Makaye says their employees are deployed in high-risk environments where they are in daily contact with high volumes of patients visiting facilities for medical attention.

He adds that the company is obliged to provide a safe working environment to employees.

Source: IOL

Retailer Shoprite Group is calling on the government to allow its employees to receive vaccinations urgently as the third wave of the Covid-19 increases in severity.

The group said it has more than 140 000 employees who serve more than 25 million people a month.

The supermarket group said it was South Africa’s largest private-sector employer, and believes the government must prioritise the allocation of vaccines to its front-line workers. It will source and administer the vaccines at its own cost and through its logistics and pharmaceutical infrastructure.

The group said when President Cyril Ramaphosa announced the level 4 restrictions, he said the mining, manufacturing and taxi industries would be the focus of the fourth stream of the vaccination programme.

Shoprite Group chief executive Pieter Engelbrecht said: “Our front-line workers, including cashiers, merchandisers and line management retail workers, have been at work every day since the onset of the pandemic, working tirelessly to ensure we provide food, essential groceries and medicine to the nation.

“Our people interact with 25 million customers coming into our stores every month, and they must be vaccinated,” said Engelbrecht.

He said the group strongly believed that its employees should be prioritised, and the group was ready to roll out vaccinations on behalf of the government to its employees.

The group said it had a logistical and pharmaceutical distribution network to roll out vaccines to its employees through Transpharm Pharmaceutical Distributors and pharmacy chain MediRite.

“As the last few weeks have shown, South Africa will continue to be vulnerable to future waves of Covid-19 until we have vaccinated a sufficient percentage of our population,” Engelbrecht said.

“The group is eager to see the vaccine roll-out programme accelerated, and we can help if we can secure and administer vaccines while absorbing all the costs ourselves.

“We are prepared to play a role and foot the bill, and we can ensure it will happen rapidly,” said Engelbrecht.

 

By Thandazani Ngwenya, client executive at 21st Century

There is a lot of research about the varied needs and world views of different generations. In this article, a working millennial discusses how work looks through his eyes and what has changed in comparison to how his parents did it.

The age of instant gratification

I am in month three of the world of work, in my first job and an excited employee. As a millennial, flexibility, accessibility, ease and instant gratification are part of our ‘genetic make-up’.

The very first work experience

Technology and its advancements are very familiar to me. Growing up in the digital age meant that a large portion of my relationships, both personal and professional, were established online. My career, in terms of how I positioned myself, was conducted on a virtual basis; for instance, via LinkedIn, and unlike my parents’ era, I was not confined to physically having to deliver my CV. My job search was made easier by access to technology.

This is an element that I have come to associate with my current world of work, where seeking and starting work during the global pandemic meant that relationships were established on a virtual basis. I met the majority of my colleagues via platforms like Zoom and Microsoft teams. The relationships were not difficult to establish or maintain. In fact, I believe these circumstances made people more accessible at all levels of the organisation, including management.

Being raised in the digital age made me accustomed to a life that is characterised by access, increased usability, and to a degree, instant gratification. These are characteristics and expectations I have brought to my workspace.

Was it different to what you expected? In what way?

It was VERY different! I grew up observing not only my parents but extended family and their friends, donning three-piece suits for interviews, having to physically submit CVs to HR representatives and attending activities such as interviews and onboarding/orientation in person to outline a few elements.

Transitioning from university into the real world with that as the basis for how I have come to see the working world was quickly displaced by technological advancements and the COVID pandemic. For starters, my interview was conducted virtually, and I had attended a funeral on the same day, which prompted me to conduct my interview from a car in a different province than that of my prospective place of employment.

This scenario embodies my attributes as a millennial. It was convenient, easy (not bound to the traditional brick and mortar confines) and allowed for flexibility. When I got the job, my orientation into the organisation followed a similarly flexible path. It was conducted both virtually and in person. And because of the remote element, I had the opportunity to form relationships with some of my colleagues that I would not have ordinarily had access to.

The hierarchical divide I expected was not the same as how previous generations described it. The channels of access were opened immensely, with immediate access to executives and management.

My outputs were within my control, as if I had become the CEO of my own enterprise, motivated to produce work and achieve optimal results, not because of constant supervision but because I was driven. For me, I believe this is an important responsibility when flexibility and an excess in freedom is introduced.

I have come to understand the culture of my new company, and see that it is likely I would have experienced a non-hierarchical entity in any event. But I have been impressed at the adaptability and strength of relationships and culture, particularly at this early stage of my employment.

As days roll into nights, into weeks, months, years… we are prone to changes at the core of our existence as humans, having to adapt as life evolves. Society at large is not immune to this evolution and the world of work is vastly different from the way it was introduced to me from a spectator’s point of view.

What does it all mean?

Flexibility in today’s world of work for me is indicative of an ability to structure my life in the way that I see fit. For instance, I have been able to dabble in online courses in between my breaks, learning new skills on YouTube or just spend time reading a book.

A flexible work structure takes away the notion of surveillance, and with that, an ability to accurately measure productivity in its traditional sense. As a millennial, I feel like a CEO of my own job, where flexibility has given me the ability to take responsibility and become the ‘boss’ of myself. My pay is influenced by everything I do every day; my job satisfaction is up to me; my learning and development is in my own hands.

Accessibility as an element of my ‘genetic make-up’ is experienced in the way that the communication lines between myself, my superiors and my colleagues have opened up, replacing the hierarchy I expected with a harmonious openness and access to other team members.

By Hanno Labuschagne for MyBroadband

Around 35% of senior managers in government do not have the necessary qualifications or credentials for their position.

This was revealed by the Minister of Public Service and Administration Senzo Mchunu in a written response to a parliamentary question posed by the Democratic Alliance.

Senior managers in South African government require at least an NQF Level 7 qualification, which is equal to a Bachelor’s Degree or Advanced Diploma.

According to information captured in government’s Personal and Salary System (PERSAL) as of 15 February 2021, however, there were no records of such qualifications for 3 301 of the 9 477 senior managers in the public service.

  • 5 447 of government’s senior managers operated at national level
  • 1 987 did not have a record of a suitable qualification
  • The largest number of those were in the police department, which accounted for 228 unqualified senior managers
  • The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform, and Rural Development follows with 227
  • The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development has 189
  • 1 314 out of 4 028 senior managers at provincial government departments did not have the required qualifications
  • Gauteng accounted for the highest number among the provinces, with 381 senior managers lacking the necessary qualifications for their jobs – the largest number of these were in the Health department
  • KwaZulu-Natal has 246 unqualified senior managers
  • The Eastern Cape has 185 unqualified senior managers

SABC to retrench more than 600 staff

By Ntombi Nkosi on IOL

It was a sad day for 621 employees from the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) after it announced that it’s going ahead with retrenchments.

The broadcaster said in a statement that the monumental retrenchment process was due to its unhealthy financial situation, attributed to its bloated wage bill.

SABC said it has concluded its Section 189 process and will transition into the new fit-for-purpose structure effective from April 1, 2021.

Speaking to Independent Media, one employee said: “I really don’t know how to feel, I am heartbroken and don’t know what the future holds for me. I am one of the people that has been receiving counselling organised by HR.”

The broadcaster said the reduction of employee costs is central to its turnaround plan and its long-term sustainability. The Section 189 process began with the issuing of the notice in June 2020, and after an intensive nine-month period, it will conclude on Wednesday.

“The retrenchment process has been extremely difficult for all stakeholders and became emotionally charged at times. The extended process unfortunately also created prolonged uncertainty and a sense of despondency for many.

’’This was understandable and regrettable. However, despite these challenges, the Section 189 process was a necessary component of the SABC’s turnaround plan to ensure the public broadcaster’s long-term financial sustainability and capacity to fulfil its extensive public mandate,” said SABC’s Group Chief Executive, Madoda Mxakwe.

He added that the process was necessary to preserve and reposition the SABC as a resilient and viable public broadcaster and public media organisation.

“The SABC will continue to diligently serve the tens of millions of South Africans who rely on it for education, sport, news and entertainment in all our languages. We remain committed to transforming the SABC and taking its content everywhere, across platforms, on all devices and in all our languages.

’’We want to be part of preserving this national treasure which has the public interest at the very heart of its existence,” said Mxakwe

SABC said 346 of the 621 employees, notwithstanding the existence of alternative jobs, opted for voluntary severance packages.

The broadcaster said some employees were concerned about the impact of lower job scale codes resulting from the evaluation process on current salaries and their pension. They took voluntary severance packages as a first option and chose not to participate in any alternative job-seeking processes.

The other 275 employees are those who occupied positions that have become redundant. Some employees in this category went through the recruitment process seeking alternative opportunities, but were unfortunately not successful.

 

Beware dismissals based on spite

By Ivan Israelstam, chief executive of Labour Law Management Consulting

Feelings of spite arise at work for a great variety of reasons such as:

  • Power struggles between managers
  • Employees competing for advancement
  • Racial and other prejudices
  • Scapegoating
  • Managers feeling threatened by other managers or senior staff
  • Sexual affairs
  • Favouritism and victimisation
  • Nepotism
  • The development of factions

Feelings of spite occur across the spectrum of all types of employers. While these smouldering conflicts affect all levels of employees, they tend to become much more intense and damaging in the senior levels of the organisation.

For example, in the case of Joseph vs Standard Bank of SA (2001, 8 BALR 868) Joseph was dismissed for failing to be present when money was being prepared for collection. The CCMA arbitrator found that, in the specific circumstance, it was unreasonable to have expected Joseph to be present at the preparation of the cash. This was because she was required to carry out a number of other duties at the time of the cash preparation. The CCMA also found that the dismissal had been implemented out of spite due to a personal clash between Joseph and her superior. As a result the employer was ordered to pay the employee 12 months’ remuneration in compensation.

In cases of dismissal due to spite employers might lose not only financially due to CCMA awards. A more serious consequence can be negative publicity. Also, the fallout in terms of damaged employee relations, impaired teamwork, poor performance and lost productivity can cripple an organisation.

It is therefore crucial that the employer:

  • Identifies personal hostilities early
  • Accepts that it needs to be dealt with urgently
  • Assigns its best industrial relations expert to develop and implement a strategy for resolving the conflict in an orderly, fair, pragmatic and legal way.

The higher up the organisation ladder an executive goes the more likely that, where conflicts exist, the employer will try to resolve the matter quietly by putting pressure on the executive to resign. Executives and other employees often accept small or mediocre ‘settlement packages’ to avoid the discomfort of a dismissal.

However, more recently, executives have begun to dig their heels in and are more reluctant to accept packages because jobs are harder to find. This means that employees are often negotiating bigger settlement packages especially if they have the backing of an experienced labour law negotiator.

Employers are warned that the amount of the settlement tends to increase in proportion to the extent to which the employer has breached the law. For example, we recently negotiated, on behalf of an executive, a settlement well in excess of one year’s remuneration. And this is becoming a more and more common occurrence.

On the other hand, we have also been able to help employers to avoid having to pay such crippling settlements by intervening before the pawpaw hits the fan. That is, where we have been called on in time we have been able to avoid rash action by the employer which then places the employer in a stronger negotiating position.

Workplace politics are here to stay but employers and employees can, by acting timeously and sensibly, prevent them from causing irreparable harm.

Why the office still matters

After working from home and collaborating from afar, the importance of the workplace and all that it offers has become clear: an office is more than just a place to work and while some people have adapted to WFH, many people miss the office, perhaps even surprising themselves.

“The workplace drives innovation and growth and fosters culture and sense of community, while providing the tools and resources people need to be truly productive,” says Linda Trim, director at Giant Leap.

There are countless benefits to having a physical place that brings an organisation’s people together. Here are just 5 reasons why the workplace matters – and will continue to matter.

Personal and corporate growth: The post-COVID economy has ushered in a season of survival mode for companies. “But the pivot back to growth mode for people and businesses will be here soon. Growth depends on innovation, and that’s driven by people coming together to collaborate and think,” Trim said. “And dare we say it: Make sure we are better prepared for another even that disrupts business continuity.”

Further digital transformation: If companies weren’t thinking about digital transformation before COVID-19, they certainly are now. Organisations have been forced to compete and manage a range of disruptions — internal and external, domestic and global.

Says Trim:”They’re launching new business models and equipping teams to be ready for anything; digital transpiration will evolve for years to come.”

  • Attract and retain talent – the workplace is a key tool to help organisations attract, retain and engage talent. Not only is space an expression of the company, it sends important cultural signals about what new talent can expect in your organisation. Is there choice and control? Are there social spaces to meet with teammates?
    “While technology can help with some elements, like onboarding, it’s hard to build community and nurture the kinds of relationships needed to engage talent and strengthen teams over Zoom,” Trim notes.
  • Innovation – research shows that successful innovation is typically ‘place-based’. Workplaces foster these connections and promote innovative activities like building models, sharing content, testing prototypes, iterating in real time, collecting annotations and ideas and building on the collective efforts of the team. Two-dimensional technology simply cannot move the needle like three-dimensional interactions can.
  • Collaboration and connection – collaboration is a key, place-based business behaviour with demonstrable links to growth and innovation. Sharing ideas, brainstorming and bringing others along through discussion creates new concepts. Body language and other unspoken behaviours provide social cues that can be easily missed when not in person. When every meeting starts and ends on time, there is no room for the magic of serendipity. At the same time, people who don’t interact with others or participate in the workplace risk becoming irrelevant, undervalued or overlooked. “These factors don’t just impact individuals’ career paths, they impact a company’s ability to fill the talent pipeline. Having a place to create meaningful connections is more important than ever,” Trim concludes.

How do you select who to retrench?

Source: LabourNet

South Africa has experienced several negative economic factors including the Covid-19 pandemic that have adversely affected the performance of companies in all industries. Companies have failed to achieve budgeted revenue while significant financial losses over the past few months have increased.

This has led to an increase in employers being forced to reduce the number of staff through retrenchments by following Section 189 and 189A of the Labour Relations Act. Dismissals based on the employer’s operational requirements include the employer’s economical, technological, structural or similar needs.

Employers must ensure that the termination due to retrenchment must be substantively and procedurally fair to avoid spending time and money at the relevant dispute resolution forums like the CCMA, Bargaining Council and the Labour Court. When an employer is forced to enter into retrenchment consultations, the selection criteria used when selecting which employees may be affected falls within the fairness of the dismissal.

The LRA in section 189(2) prescribes that a joint consensus seeking procedure must be followed and further continues in Section 189(2)(b) that an attempt to reach consensus on the method for selecting the employees to be dismissed. Section 189(7) prescribes that the employer must select employees to be dismissed according to a selection criterion that has been agreed between the parties or failing agreement a criterion that is both fair and objective.

This agreement can be agreed upon in the collective agreement between the Union and the employer and could further be agreed upon between the parties during the consultation process.

Should there be no agreement between the parties, the employer should follow Section 189(7)(b), which refers to the fair and objective selection criteria. The principal of “LIFO” last in first out, that refers to the employee’s years of service is the most commonly used selection criteria in the absence of an agreement between the parties. This is however not the only alternative selection criteria that may be used, when an employer is exploring a fair and objective selection criteria the employer should keep in mind that this selection criterion may not discriminate against a certain group of people.

Performance, skills and qualification or a combination of these criterions is frequently used as a selection criteria during retrenchments.

In Oosthuizen v Telkom SA Ltd [2007] 11 BLLR 1013 (LAC) the court found that the dismissal of the applicant was unfair when the respondent made use of skills, suitability and the company’s employment equity policy, without taking into consideration the appellants years of service.

It is important that the selection criteria should be fair and objective, not only one of the above. By pulling employees names out of a hat could be seen as objective, however it could still be seen as unfair should an employee be selected on this basis with significant more years of service than the employee who is not affected unless this was agreed to by the consulting parties.

There are different ways and means for employers to make use of selection criterions when faced with retrenchments. The sustainability of the business going forward is of outmost importance, however the use of the last in first out “LIFO” principal has been accepted and endorsed by the courts.

By Phumi Ramalepe for Business Insider SA

Discovery Health has dismissed 10 employees for being part of a private WhatsApp group that apparently aimed to get its Cape Town offices closed.

The 10 young call centre employees apparently asked to be allowed to work from home around the beginning of lockdown. Three of them said they contracted Covid-19.

Their lawyer says their privacy was violated. Discovery says the evidence it obtained through a whistleblower is grounds for dismissal.

Discovery Health fired 10 call centre employees during lockdown for being part of a WhatsApp group that, apparently, sought to “shut down” local Cape Town offices in March, for fear of the coronavirus.

Now the employees want compensation, and their jobs back, but Discovery says it had solid grounds to dismiss them – even though the chat group was private.

According to Discovery, another employee, who had been an active participant of the group, provided information about posts in the group. The company characterises the conversations as bringing it into disrepute, while, it says, the employees failed to raise their concerns internally.

“Ten employees were plotting to sabotage Discovery Health, including plans to involve external third parties to bring the company into disrepute,” said Ryan Noach, the CEO of Discovery Health.

“The motive appeared to be an attempt to achieve the closure of the local Discovery Health offices, in order not to have to work during the period.”

Although the group chat was private, Discovery insists that the employees were “acting subversively”, based on evidence from the whistleblower.

After investigations were conducted, the employees were dismissed in July.

The employees’ pro bono lawyer, Nkosinathi Malgas, said the employees were dismissed unfairly, and only created the WhatsApp group to support each other after Discovery Health refused to let all of them work from home while three of them contracted Covid-19.

“The contents of the WhatsApp group were them talking about their safety in the workplace, and they were supporting one another in terms of the emotional trauma that they were going through,” said Malgas.

Malgas argues that the employees’ right to privacy was also violated, since information that was meant to be private was used against them.

“Constitutional rights of citizens override any social [media] policy. This information was processed from their personal cellphones and these individuals have got a right to privacy.

“Their information is protected in terms of the Protection of Personal Information Act, and therefore anyone who wants to get into your personal information must do so with your consent as well as a court order,” said Malgas.

It would have been a different story had the employees used Discovery’s tools of trade, according to Malgas, rather than their own cellphones and a chat platform unconnected to the company.

Noach, however, insisted no one’s rights were infringed throughout investigations.

“It should also be entirely clear, that all device information utilised in this disciplinary investigation was submitted voluntarily and without coercion, by a whistleblower who made their personal device available.

“There was certainly no infringement of any personal confidential device information whatsoever,” Noach said.

An arbitration that wasn’t
Discovery and the employees had been due to appear before the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) on Monday, but Discovery did not show up, according to Malgas.

A clause in the employees’ contracts stipulates that any dispute related to labour matters, dismissals or termination of employment will be referred to a private arbitration, Malgas said, which means they will have to pay a potion of the cost of such private arbitration.

Discovery tells a different story, however. It had applied for the CCMA matter to be heard virtually, the company said.

“The Commissioner tasked to deal with the matter was unfortunately unavailable and the file was handed to another. It was unfortunate that technical issues were experienced on the side of the CCMA and we could not engage further,” Noach said.

Source: Supermarket & Retailer

Despite the widespread practice of shutting down entire retail stores and calling in deep-cleaning experts when an employee tests positive for COVID-19, there is no legal requirement for retailers (or other employers) to do either.

This is according to Talita Laubscher, partner at leading African law firm, Bowmans, who said: ‘We have been told by representatives of the Department of Health that in most circumstances, it’s not necessary to do a complete shutdown. What’s more, cleaning does not need to be completed by special cleaning service providers. It can be as simple as using Jik.’

She was speaking during a recent webinar hosted by Bowmans on employment law challenges faced by the retail sector.

Unlike other sectors, the retail industry has been open since the start of the national lockdown, when there were no directives in place to deal with situations where employees tested positive for COVID-19. In the absence of directives at the time, Department of Employment and Labour inspectors adopted certain practices, such as instructing retailers, especially food retailers, to shut down their stores and call in external cleaning specialists. These practices have in some instances continued from then on – even though they are not legal requirements contained in any of the directives.

Laubscher said in the event that an employee tests positive, the employer must consider three things: the need to temporarily close and decontaminate the affected area; placing the employee who tested positive in isolation; and determining who else has been in contact with the employee who tested positive and assessing the level of risk of that exposure. ‘In this regard, a distinction is made between a high-risk exposure and a low-risk exposure.’

Low vs high-risk exposure

A low-risk exposure is where the contact with the employee who tested positive was for less than 15 minutes and more than 1.5 metres apart, with the individuals wearing protective equipment such as masks or shields. ‘In these circumstances, the employee who was in contact with the one who tested positive can continue to work, but must be carefully monitored for the development of symptoms,’ she said.

In the case of a high-risk exposure, the employee must be placed in quarantine. A high-risk exposure is contact for more than 15 minutes and less than 1.5 metres apart, with the individuals not wearing protective equipment.

‘The employee’s absence following a high-risk exposure absence must be treated as sick leave,” said Laubscher. ‘If sick leave is exhausted, the employer might allow the employee to take annual leave, or special COVID-19 leave, at the discretion of the employer. If such leave options are not available and the employee develops symptoms, the employee may be able to claim illness benefits from the Unemployment Insurance Fund.’

Paid sick leave for employees who test positive

As soon as it comes to light that an employee is positive for COVID-19, the employer must notify the national Department of Health. If the person contracted the virus at the workplace, the Department of Employment and Labour must also be notified.

COVID-19-positive people must immediately be placed on paid sick leave, said Laubscher. ‘If they have exhausted their sick leave, they should apply for the illness benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act.’

When the employee has recovered and is ready to work, there is no need for her or him to be tested again before returning to the workplace. ‘All the person needs, is a medical certificate confirming that she or he is fit and healthy to work again. There is no legal requirement for another test.’

This has been confirmed in the Directive issued by the Minister of Health on 11 August 2020, in terms of which repeat testing is not required for a person to de-isolate. This Directive also reduces the isolation period to 10 days. The Occupational Health and Safety Directive has, however, not yet been amended and this Directive still refers to the isolation period of 14 days.

In another recent development, the Minister of Employment and Labour has signed new directives on dealing with COVID-19-related Compensation Fund claims. The purpose is to provide clearer guidance on compensation for employees who contracted the virus at the workplace and to take new scientific developments into account.

 

  • 1
  • 2
  • 6

Follow us on social media: 

               

View our magazine archives: 

                       


My Office News Ⓒ 2017 - Designed by A Collective


SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
Top