Regular Concerns
  • Workplace Discipline
  • Contracts of Employment
  • Breaking News

    

     Ivan Israelstam

    Employers rely heavily on the presence at work of their employees in order to get he work done. It is therefore a major source of frustration for employers when workers are absent. Where such absence is repeated or takes place over a protracted period this frustration often turns into intense anger. This provokes the employer into wanting to get rid of the absent employee permanently so as to replace him or her with someone who will not be absent so often and who can, therefore, be relied on to be at work.
                               
    However, such employers are often caught in the following vicious circle: 

    • The employer has an employee who is absent without leave.
    • The employer needs to hold a disciplinary hearing in order to get rid of the employee in a legally compliant manner.
    • But the employee is absent and the employer has no way of knowing whether the employee will be coming back.
    • The law says that employees are entitled to participate in disciplinary hearings brought against them because the employee has the right to know what the charges against him or her are and the right to defend his/her case.
    • But the employer is unable to get the employee to the hearing because the employee is absent and cannot be located.

                                          

    In other words, the very offence of unauthorised absence is preventing the employer from disciplining the employee. In their resulting anger, frustration and confusion employers often act before checking what the law allows them to do.
                         
    They either:

    • Immediately take the employee off the books and record that he/she has dismissed himself/ herself; or
    • Hold a disciplinary hearing in the employee's absence and fire him/her.

               

    As I mentioned in a recent article, employers are not entitled to work on the assumption that the employee has dismissed himself/herself. The courts have repeatedly said that, unless the employee clearly resigns, it cannot be determined that he/she has done so and, therefore, he/she has not terminated employment. This raises the question as to what constitutes resignation.
                         
    In my view resignation can be indicated in three ways:

    • Firstly, receiving a letter or note from the employee stating that he/she is leaving the employer's employ;
    • Secondly, an oral statement by the employee, such as "I hereby tender my resignation" and the employee also packs up his/her things, physically departs and does not return by the employee's next shift. Section 37 (4) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act requires notice of termination to be in writing unless given by an illiterate employee.

                               

    However, in my view, the employee's failure to put the resignation in writing would not necessarily invalidate it if his/her actions made it clear that he/she was leaving.
                
    However, employers should act with great caution in such circumstances. 

    • Thirdly, the employee leaves without saying anything and goes to work full time for another employer in a permanent post.

                

    In my view, this could constitute tacit resignation. Again, employers should act with great caution in such circumstances. Where employers fail to exercise caution in dealing with employees who "disappear" they usually end up on the losing end at the CCMA. For example, in the case of Siswana v Thomas Restorations (2007, 1 BAR 12) the employee disappeared for a month after informing the employer over the telephone that he was at home attending to family business.
               
    The employer held a disciplinary hearing in the employee's absence and fired him. The arbitrator accepted that the employee had previously received several warnings for repeated absenteeism. The arbitrator also found that the employee had been informed, when he phoned in, that he would face dismissal if he did not return to work the following day. The arbitrator found further that, after the first phone call, the employee had not attempted to contact the employer again. 

              
    Despite making these findings, the arbitrator still found the dismissal to be unfair because the employer had failed to attempt to contact the employee at his home and had failed to grant the employee a hearing when he returned after the month's absence.
                                     
    In the light of this decision employers are advised to get proper labour law advice before acting against employees who break the rules. 

    • Ivan Israelstam is the chief executive of Labour Law Management Consulting.
    • You can contact him on 011-888-7944 or 082-852-2973 or via e-mail on This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.  
    • Our appreciation to The Star newspaper for permission to publish this article. 

    Newsletter Signup

    Join more than 66 000 subscribers by simply entering your email address in the text area. Subscription to the newsletter is free of charge, you will be able to unsubscribe anytime without any obligation.

    Courses and Workshops

    Occupational injuries and diseases in the workplace

    25 November 2014(Fully Booked)

    Southern Sun: OR Tambo International Airport

    28 November 2014

    Southern Sun: OR Tambo International Airport

    Construction Regulation Course

    26 November 2014

    Southern Sun: Century City(Canal Walk): Cape Town

    Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment Course

    27 November 2014

    Southern Sun: Century City(Canal Walk): Cape Town

    Workshop Incident/Accident Investigation Course

    28 November 2014

    Southern Sun: Century City(Canal Walk): Cape Town