Labour law question

ShareMosselBay

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 25, 2014
Messages
165
Reaction score
1
Location
Mossel Bay
Hi all

I have a question: we had a situation at work where, due to riots, some colleagues could not get to work due to the roads being blocked.

Now management has sent correspondence that those who could not get to work, have to either (1) take the day as a paid leave day and therefore use a day if leave; or (2) no pay but do not have to use a day as leave.

I am not certain on the law here, but these options were given by labour consultant.

Your views?
 
Resign now, your bosses are ****s.

I'm not a labour lawyer but I suspect that if the employees made an effort to go to work and could not, the employer can't hold that against them.
 
Very good question.

Made me go and check our work contracts to see if such event was catered for and it isn't, no force majeure clause either.

I've checked on Google and can't find similar cases either.

To be taken with caution as it's only my thumbguess (as a lawyer but not an employment specialist though) on the matter, I'd say that if he can prove that he had absolutely no chance of being able to reach the workplace even very late and warned in real time of it, he should be paid.

If not, the company would have a point that he did not endeavour all options and therefore cannot be entitled to be paid.

It's 100% a wild guess though and it seems to be a very unusual case.

(And it actually freaks me out to not be able to answer)
 
Last edited:
IANAL.

Logically, you get paid for what you deliver, or the time you spend at work depending on the company.

If are at work, but are unable to work because of issues at the company (like load shedding) then you should be paid. It is the responsibility of the company to ensure that you have what you need to do the work expected of you.
If you are not able to make it to the company, for whatever reason, it is not their fault. It is your responsibility to get to the company, unless otherwise stated.

In practice though, I think employee goodwill is worth a day's wages.
 
Resign now, your bosses are ****s.

I'm not a labour lawyer but I suspect that if the employees made an effort to go to work and could not, the employer can't hold that against them.
Do that and you'll see employees absent every week because of "strikes"
 
Very good question.

Made me go and check our work contracts to see if such event was catered for and it isn't, no force majeure clause either.

I've checked on Google and can't find similar cases either.

To be taken with caution as it's only my thumbguess (as a lawyer but not an employment specialist though) on the matter, I'd say that if he can prove that he had absolutely no chance of being able to reach the workplace even very late and warned in real time of it, he should be paid.

If not, the company would have a point that he did not endeavour all options and therefore cannot be entitled to be paid.

It's 100% a wild guess though and it seems to be a very unusual case.

(And it actually freaks me out to not be able to answer)
It's really not a uncommon situation in a lot of small businesses. Especially in the construction industry. There are strikes and protests almost every week in the townships. If employers had to give employees a day off every time there is a protest they'd go out of business very quick.

You simply state that the day must either be unpaid or be taken from leave , and 99% of employees will pictch up one way or another. (Sometimes late, but you obviously have to give some leeway if the guy made an effort)
 
It's really not a uncommon situation in a lot of small businesses. Especially in the construction industry. There are strikes and protests almost every week in the townships. If employers had to give employees a day off every time there is a protest they'd go out of business very quick.

You simply state that the day must either be unpaid or be taken from leave , and 99% of employees will pictch up one way or another. (Sometimes late, but you obviously have to give some leeway if the guy made an effort)

Which is why I emphasized on the conditions:

To be taken with caution as it's only my thumbguess (as a lawyer but not an employment specialist though) on the matter, I'd say that if he can prove that he had absolutely no chance of being able to reach the workplace even very late and warned in real time of it, he should be paid.

In a few European countries it would be paid as it constitute be force majeure and since SA labour law is quite protective and close to European labour laws, that's what makes me wonder.
 
Hi all

Thank you for your comments so far.

I must also point out that locally there were widespread evidence on social media and whatsapp groups that proved that roads were blocked. The municipality even told people to stay home and not travel that route.

I wonder how the Municipality is handling the case with their workers who could not reach work.

In my opinion it would go very far in terms of office morale to let it go and be done with it.

It’s not always a case if doing things right, but doing the right thing.
 
Hi all

Thank you for your comments so far.

I must also point out that locally there were widespread evidence on social media and whatsapp groups that proved that roads were blocked. The municipality even told people to stay home and not travel that route.

I wonder how the Municipality is handling the case with their workers who could not reach work.

In my opinion it would go very far in terms of office morale to let it go and be done with it.

It’s not always a case if doing things right, but doing the right thing.

This falls under absenteeism and the employee needs to refer to their employment contract.

The employer does not need to accept the reason even in a case that is reasonable. The important thing though is the employer needs to be consistent in how they handle each employee, especially when it ends up in CCMA.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X