|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
 of The Labour Consultancy. The frenzy around minimum pay for domestics underlines concerns about legislation, writes RAEL SOLOMON Good Intentions clouded by perceptionsAll this without even a White Paper on the table and little chance of a law before the 2004 election IT IS no wonder employers are feeling besieged. By February 28 this year, some 158 806 cases had been referred to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (7 000 in January alone and 81% being for unfair dismissal). Between 7% and 9% have been from the domestic sector. Two weeks ago Labour Minister Membathisi Mdladlana casually mentioned that government was seriously examining the possibility of implementing a minimum wage structure for domestic and farm workers. He also mentioned in an aside that it would be at least two years before the structure could be implemented. He got the desired result. The media went to town and within 24 hours the Domestic Workers Union climbed on the bandwagon, saying a R1 200 minimum was their objective. The minister knew what he was doing - three million votes are not to be sneezed at. Domestic employers are already examining their options and farmers are destroying shacks. And all this without even a White paper on the table and little chance of a law being promulgated before the 2004 election. The above scenario characterises the huge impact some of the labour laws are having on the job market regardless of how well-intentioned they are. When the Labour Relations Act was promulgated in November 1996 its impact was immediate. To date some 110 000 cases have been resolved at the conciliation stage by employers paying compensation. Employers have got the message. Even if correct procedures are followed and there are valid substantive reasons, dismissing an employee can be a long and costly exercise. At least two clauses are having a negative impact on employer perceptions. The main problem clause is that if the employer does not follow a required and fair procedure when dismissing an employee, regardless of the substantive reasons, a commissioner has no discretion but to award compensation equal to the remuneration that would have been earned from the date of dismissal to the last day of adjudication. With long delays at the CCMA, this may be anything from six months to a year's remuneration. A second clause stipulates that even if an employee resigns, it may be referred for constructive dismissal on the basis that continued employment was made intolerable. The prescription of working and overtime hours by the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and employers' perceptions that the Employment Equity Act will negatively change management structures should be urgently addressed by government. It's all very well introducing new legislation which an overworked CCMA can't handle. Steps have to be taken to listen to employer complaints and to educate all parties about the real intentions of the laws. An eight-page employment contract handout for housewives is not the answer.
|
