<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.w3.org/2000/08/w3c-synd/style.css" type="text/css"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
    <channel>
        <title>Polity.org.za | Labour Law Management Consulting</title>
        <description><![CDATA[Expert Labour Law Management Consulting for All Private and Public Sectors]]></description>
        <link>https://www.polity.org.za/page/labour-law-management-consulting</link>
        <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2026 23:24:55 +0200</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
        <item>
            <title>Failing to meet the onus of proof sways the tightrope</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/failing-to-meet-the-onus-of-proof-sways-the-tightrope-2026-09-25</link>
            <description><![CDATA[I have often reminded employers of the provisions of section 188 of the LRA. Appreciation for the importance of these provisions is crucial for employers who are considering dismissal of employees because they categorically and firmly place the onus of proof on the employer. What confuses employers is the common law principle that, where the employer has provided prima facie proof of guilt, the onus of proof shifts to the employee. This confusion arises, in part, from the fact that it is open to argument as to whether the employer’s evidence does or does not meet the standard of prima facie evidence.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Labour Law Management Consulting</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2026 14:31:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>730997</a_id>
        <updated>1790339653</updated>
        <published>1790339460</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001302010_resized_llmc1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Competent presiding officers important for tightrope stability – Don’t rely on artificial ...</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/competent-presiding-officers-important-for-tightrope-stability-dont-rely-on-artificial-intelligence-2026-08-27</link>
            <description><![CDATA[South African labour law is firm in insisting that employees accused of dismissible misconduct get a fair opportunity to defend themselves. Where the employer elects to provide this opportunity via a disciplinary hearing the law requires the presiding officer to be fair. Unfair conduct of a hearing chairperson could occur either due to the chair’s bias or incompetence. There are number of factors that may suggest that the hearing chairperson might be acting unfairly. These include, amongst others, situations where the chairperson:]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Labour Law Management Consulting</category>
            <pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2026 12:15:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>728894</a_id>
        <updated>1787825898</updated>
        <published>1787825700</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001295425_resized_llmc1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Coerced retrenchment agreements jolt the tightrope</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/coerced-retrenchment-agreements-jolt-the-tightrope-2026-06-26</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Section 189 of the Labour Relations Act (LRA) requires employers, before making any decision to retrench, to consult with the affected employees on a number of issues, the most important of which is any means of avoiding job losses. The employer’s duty to consult before retrenching lies at the heart of its duty to ensure procedural fairness. The employer is likely to find that failure to consult (or to consult properly) extremely costly from a legal point of view.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Labour Law Management Consulting</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2026 14:37:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>724465</a_id>
        <updated>1782477605</updated>
        <published>1782477420</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001281608_resized_llmc1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>It can be unlawful to fire illegal strikers</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/it-can-be-unlawful-to-fire-illegal-strikers-2026-05-29</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Chapter 4 of the LRA read together with item 6 of Schedule 8 of the LRA effectively allows employers to dismiss employees who have embarked on an unprotected strike. For example, where employees fail, prior to embarking on a strike to follow the LRA’s pre-strike procedures, the employer may be entitled to dismiss the strikers. This is because, by their very nature and purpose, strikes cause damage to the enterprise concerned. And the pre-strike procedures are necessary to mitigate that damage and to try to avoid the need for a strike. However, the law makes it clear that an unlawful strike does not automatically give the employer a right to fire the strikers. The appropriateness of the penalty depends on the circumstances in which the strike action took place. For example, if the employer provoked the strike this would act as a mitigating factor.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Labour Law Management Consulting</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 13:55:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>722461</a_id>
        <updated>1780055863</updated>
        <published>1780055700</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001275442_resized_llmc1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Misunderstanding the objective test can mean a tightrope disaster</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/misunderstanding-the-objective-test-can-mean-a-tightrope-disaster-2026-04-24</link>
            <description><![CDATA[When arbitrators and judges decide on whether a dismissal was for a fair reason they are required to apply what is called ‘the objective test’. That is, they must establish whether a reasonable person would have decided unemotionally that the employee’s conduct merited dismissal. This test is difficult to apply because determining what a ‘reasonable person’ is is itself a matter of individual judgement. Nevertheless, employers need to understand this rigid principle because the courts are bound to apply it when deciding whether the employer has acted fairly.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Labour Law Management Consulting</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2026 15:38:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>720092</a_id>
        <updated>1777038035</updated>
        <published>1777037880</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001268315_resized_llmc1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Firing employees in anger shakes the tightrope</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/firing-employees-in-anger-shakes-the-tightrope-2026-03-27</link>
            <description><![CDATA[A great many employers are corporate entities or established organisations whose rules and procedures are set down coldly, dispassionately and objectively. However, the managers and supervisors who implement the employer’s rules are human beings who have emotions and who are often provoked by employee misconduct into ignoring the organisation’s objective rules. Angry employers too often fire employees on the spot for having broken workplace rules, or for doing poor work. This is understandable in circumstances where the employee has seriously messed up a business deal, damaged equipment, lost crucial information, committed a dishonest act, refused to obey an instruction or caused other serious damage. However, there is no place for anger in the implementation of discipline. This is because the resultant hasty and foolhardy action is likely to trip the employer up at the CCMA.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Labour Law Management Consulting</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 11:49:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>718214</a_id>
        <updated>1774605117</updated>
        <published>1774604940</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001262335_resized_llmc1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Victimising union members can rattle the labour law tightrope</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/victimising-union-members-can-rattle-the-labour-law-tightrope-2026-02-25</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The rights of workers to belong to trade unions and to participate in their activities is heavily protected by the Constitution and by the Labour Relations Act (LRA). Section 5 of the LRA specifically protects union members, would be union members and union activists from being dismissed or otherwise prejudiced due to their union membership.   Despite the above some employers do their best to get rid of unionised employees. This is likely because they see such employees as hostile or lazy or destructive. Over the years employers have used a variety of methods of getting rid of unionised employees. These methods include stating that unions are not welcome, favouring non-unionised employees, giving union members unpleasant tasks, exposing them to uncomfortable working conditions and cooking up false disciplinary charges against them.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Labour Law Management Consulting</category>
            <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2026 09:38:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>715996</a_id>
        <updated>1772005264</updated>
        <published>1772005080</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001255763_resized_llmc1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Workplace slip ups sway the tightrope</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/workplace-slip-ups-sway-the-tightrope-2026-01-28</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Even where employers are conscientious in keeping their workplaces safe accidents can happen. To relieve employers of the burden of being sued by employees for accidents occurring at the workplace the state instituted the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA) several decades ago. Should a workplace injury comply with the legal definition the employer is required to report it to the Compensation Commissioner. The Compensation Commissioner is to compensate employees with valid claims for medical expenses, loss of the use of body parts and/or loss of remuneration due to injury induced absence from work. Some employers acquire workplace injury cover from private insurance companies. Where such insurance companies believe that an injury claim is not valid, they will refuse to pay it.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Labour Law Management Consulting</category>
            <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2026 12:20:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>714048</a_id>
        <updated>1769595789</updated>
        <published>1769595600</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001250038_resized_llmc1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>
