The HR Equation

05/05/2026

There are some significant proposed changes coming to labour law in South Africa—and they’re worth paying attention to.

Recent developments point to shifts in:
◾ Work hours and scheduling
Employers may be required to clearly define working hours, availability, and notice periods for shifts—and compensate employees if work is cancelled without proper notice.

◾ Dismissals and retrenchments
Proposals include increased severance pay and changes that could impact how dismissals are approached and justified.

◾ Leave and employee protections
There’s a continued focus on fairness, including broader protections for different categories of workers.

On paper, these changes aim to create a more balanced and fair working environment.

But in practice?

They introduce new layers of complexity for employers.
Because compliance isn’t just about knowing the law—it’s about:
◾ Updating policies
◾ Training managers
◾ Applying processes consistently
◾ Aligning contracts with reality

And this is where many organisations struggle.
Legislation can change overnight.
Implementation is where the real risk lies.

Ask yourself:
If these changes were implemented tomorrow, would your organisation be ready?

05/05/2026

I recently worked with a client who had all the right policies in place.
On paper, everything looked compliant.
In practice, it was a different story.
Policies were not applied consistently.
Each manager interpreted and enforced them differently.

The result?
◾ High staff turnover
◾ Growing perceptions of favouritism
◾ A clear breakdown of trust in management

Because inconsistency doesn’t go unnoticed.
Employees may not always know the policy—but they do notice when it’s applied unfairly.

One of the most effective solutions?
Equipping managers with the right training—and holding them accountable for consistent application.

Policies create the framework.
People determine whether they actually work.

Ask yourself:
Are your managers aligned in how they apply your policies?

04/05/2026

Resignations seem simple, right?

An employee resigns.
The employer accepts.
End of story.

Not always.

In practice, resignations can become far more complex than many organisations anticipate.

Consider this:

➡️ An employee resigns “in the heat of the moment” — can they withdraw it?
➡️ A resignation is submitted under pressure — was it truly voluntary?
➡️ An employer accepts immediately — but procedural fairness wasn’t considered
➡️ Disputes arise during the notice period

Suddenly, what seemed like a straightforward resignation turns into a potential dispute.

The reality is:

“Accepted” doesn’t always mean “resolved.”

How resignations are handled can have legal and operational implications—especially when emotions, pressure, or unclear processes are involved.

A structured and informed approach is key to avoiding unnecessary risk.

Ask yourself:
Are your resignation processes clear, consistent, and fair?

03/05/2026

Full case can be found on the following link
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7456593006490517504

29/04/2026

Job Titles vs Job Roles - Status vs Accountability & Responsibility

I recently had an experience that reinforced for me why Job Titles and Job Roles are not the same thing.

A matter was escalated first to one “manager,” and then to another.

Both were quick to emphasise that they were management and would be handling the issue.

And then… silence.

The issue remained unresolved, with no accountability.

It raised an important question:
Does holding a title automatically mean someone is fulfilling the role attached to it?

A title may signal authority.
A role requires responsibility, decision-making, ownership and follow-through.

When organisations elevate titles without clearly defining role expectations, accountability often falls through the cracks.

That’s when confusion, poor service, employee frustration and risk start to emerge.

Job titles may create status.
Job roles create accountability.

Does your organisation have alignment between the two?

29/04/2026

Assault in the Workplace: Labour Court Reinstates Dismissal as Fair

A recent Labour Court judgment in Belgotex Floors (Pty) Ltd v CCMA & Others (D538/2023) offers an important reminder about misconduct, credibility assessments, and the limits of arbitration awards.

Parties Involved:
◾ Applicant: Belgotex Floors (Pty) Ltd
◾ Third Respondent: SACTWU obo Bhekinhlanhla Zungu
◾ Forum: Labour Court reviewing a CCMA arbitration award

Case Summary
An employee was dismissed for gross misconduct after striking a female co-worker during a workplace altercation involving a dispute over equipment.

At arbitration, the commissioner found the dismissal unfair, largely based on credibility findings against the complainant and mitigation factors such as:
◾ 9 years’ service
◾ Clean disciplinary record
◾ Perceived good workplace reputation

Excerpt from Judgement:
"... the commissioner, substantially on adverse credibility findings, rejected Masinga’s version, and that of her supervisor who had testified that immediately after the incident Zungu admitted that he had “pushed” Masinga.
The commissioner found that even if Zungu had “struck” Masinga, “the circumstances surrounding the incident are such that the sanction of dismissal would have been unfair” because of his 9 years of service, his clean disciplinary record and her findings that he had a good reputation in the workplace and had presented himself as a “very restrained and respectful person throughout the hearing”."
[End]

The commissioner substituted dismissal with a finding of unfair dismissal.
Belgotex took the matter on review.

Labour Court Findings
The Labour Court set aside the arbitration award and found the dismissal substantively fair.
The Court held that the commissioner had committed reviewable irregularities, including:
◾ Flawed credibility findings
◾ Mischaracterisation of evidence
◾ Reliance on subjective and irrational reasoning
◾ Failure to properly assess probabilities
◾ Overemphasis on mitigation despite the seriousness of assault
◾ The Court found the employee’s conduct justified dismissal, particularly given the nature of workplace violence and the breakdown of trust.

Key Takeaways for Employers and HR
◾ Workplace assault is serious misconduct
Long service and a clean record will not automatically outweigh violent conduct.

◾ Credibility findings must be grounded in evidence
Commissioners cannot rely on speculation, personal views or irrelevant considerations.

◾ Progressive discipline has limits
Some misconduct is sufficiently serious to justify dismissal on a first offence.

◾ Proper investigations matter
Consistent witness evidence and sound disciplinary processes remain critical in defending dismissals.

◾ Review courts will intervene
Where arbitration awards are unreasonable or unsupported by evidence, they can be overturned.

Diiscipline

29/04/2026

Employment can exist without a written contract.
This exposes the company.

Without a contract what the company thinks may be temporary or casual employment is actually considered permanent employment. Courts rely on company policies and the BCEA to determine contractual obligations, like leave, benefits, etc.

Are your contracts in place?
Do you require an HR Audit and assistance with ensuring your HR department is fully compliant?

Contact us today.

09/04/2026

Employment can exist without a written contract.
This exposes the company.

Without a contract, what the company thinks may be temporary or casual employment is actually considered permanent employment. Courts will rely on company policies and the BCEA to determine contractual obligations, like leave, benefits, etc.

Are your contracts in place?
Do you require an HR Audit and assistance with ensuring your HR department is fully compliant?

Contact us today.

07/04/2026

07/04/2026

A well-crafted Job Description does not seem important… until something goes wrong.

A job description sets clear expectations, defines accountability, and aligns both the employee and employer on what success looks like. Without it, confusion creeps in, performance becomes subjective, and managing accountability becomes difficult.

One of the biggest challenges arises during performance management. When expectations haven’t been clearly defined, employees can — and often do — push back, citing a lack of clarity around their role or focus areas.
This makes it significantly harder to address underperformance fairly and effectively.

A strong job description helps to:
◾ Clarify roles and responsibilities
◾ Support fair performance management
◾ Reduce workplace conflict and misunderstandings
◾ Strengthen recruitment by attracting the right talent
◾ Provide a clear framework for growth and development

In many workplace disputes, one of the first questions asked is: “What was the employee actually employed to do?”

If that answer isn’t clear, it weakens decision-making and increases organisational risk.

Clarity is not a luxury — it’s a necessity.

If your organisation hasn’t reviewed its job descriptions in a while, now is the time.