Proposed law to increase CCMA efficiency

DJ...

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
70,287
It's no different to civil suits where this is standard and it's there to cut down on frivolous reviews that not only tie down the CCMA employees but act as a barge-pole for certain employers. But by the same token I really don't see this having any dent on a business' cash flow, so will for all intents and purposes, be effectively useless. I can understand their thought process here but I don't think they will achieve what they're setting out to do.

What's worrying is that the CCMA were still taking on high-income cases by the looks of things. As far as I'm aware, the department of labour has handled these cases for some time now...
 
F

Fudzy

Guest
I worked for more than 10 years before I started my own business.

this is no "unfairly dismissed" in this world. (I will not explain to you it is because you never will understand it.)

only stupid and lazy people think their dismissals are "unfair".
Seriously? Perhaps you haven't come across any cases of unfair dismissal but they do happen.
 

DJ...

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
70,287
Seriously? Perhaps you haven't come across any cases of unfair dismissal but they do happen.
Ignore the child. She can barely string a sentence together yet claims to run a hugely successful company. Reminds me of VendaBoy and VioAdmin...
 

ISP cash cow

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
5,722
Explain how the ANC comes into good labour practices please?
Well the CCMA is a government department, which is run by? To me this is where the problem comes in whereby a government who is in bed with a union tends to try and appeases the union by throwing in some gestures to go against business.

Seriously? Perhaps you haven't come across any cases of unfair dismissal but they do happen.
Unfair dismissal does happen and that is why the CCMA could/should be an important part of the unfairly treated employee's safety concerns. Unfortunately the CCMA goes over and beyond that portfolio and tends to act as a financial broker between company and employee. whereby they know the employee is guilty they tend to ask the company well how much are you willing to pay to make the problem go away? how is that fair to the company that they have to still part with money and time for an employee that was found guilty of misconduct.

what amazes me is we have a high unemployment rate in this country, Companies prefer to use labour brokers rather than hire their own staff, and then we have the CCMA which should be impartial in their decisions between employer and employee but always leans to the employees side and people still cannot connect the dots to why?
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
102,936
Unfair dismissal does happen and that is why the CCMA could/should be an important part of the unfairly treated employee's safety concerns. Unfortunately the CCMA goes over and beyond that portfolio and tends to act as a financial broker between company and employee. whereby they know the employee is guilty they tend to ask the company well how much are you willing to pay to make the problem go away? how is that fair to the company that they have to still part with money and time for an employee that was found guilty of misconduct.
That is EXACTLY how the system currently works. Somebody else who has obviously spent a fair amount of time there! :(
 
F

Fudzy

Guest
Well the CCMA is a government department, which is run by? To me this is where the problem comes in whereby a government who is in bed with a union tends to try and appeases the union by throwing in some gestures to go against business.
Government is made up by more than just the ANC though, the opposition parties are welcome to and do throw their weight in on issues that are unjust, are they doing that here?

Unfair dismissal does happen and that is why the CCMA could/should be an important part of the unfairly treated employee's safety concerns. Unfortunately the CCMA goes over and beyond that portfolio and tends to act as a financial broker between company and employee. whereby they know the employee is guilty they tend to ask the company well how much are you willing to pay to make the problem go away? how is that fair to the company that they have to still part with money and time for an employee that was found guilty of misconduct.
Really? Is that over and above severance pay?

what amazes me is we have a high unemployment rate in this country, Companies prefer to use labour brokers rather than hire their own staff, and then we have the CCMA which should be impartial in their decisions between employer and employee but always leans to the employees side and people still cannot connect the dots to why?
If the CCMA was more orientated towards protecting businesses rather than people it probably wouldn't be there.
 

DJ...

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
70,287
Government is made up by more than just the ANC though, the opposition parties are welcome to and do throw their weight in on issues that are unjust, are they doing that here?
Personally I don't see why they should, unless this is likely to impact the cash flow of micro and small companies...

Really? Is that over and above severance pay?
I can't speak for ISP, but in my cases, sometimes yes. And often that's accepted as a price to pay...

If the CCMA was more orientated towards protecting businesses rather than people it probably wouldn't be there.
I think you misunderstand what the role of the CCMA is. It is not there to protect employees. They are supposed to be neutral in conciliation, mediation and arbitration. Supposed to be, at least. In other words in practice, they favour employees which means that companies tend to get a raw deal in many cases...
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
102,936
Really? Is that over and above severance pay?
Yes, the employee simply walks in and claims "unfair dismissal".
There is no investigation of the actual facts which led to their dismissal.
They just proceed straight into a "conciliation" meeting in which the employee makes their demand.
Usually the employees are advised by the CCMA to ask for one week for every year they have worked.
They then ask the employer what are you going to offer (there is no chance to say anything about why the emplpyee was actually dismissed).
The employer is automatically deemed to have acted illegally and pressure is put on them to "settle" with the employee.
If the employer does not make an offer or rejects the employees demands, then they proceed straight into the "arbitration" part of the meeting.
It is at that point that the CCMA usually rules against the employer (based on some petty technicality) and confirms the employees demands.
If the employer still refuses to accept the arbitration they have to proceed to the labour court (at considerable cost to the employer in time and money).

The entire system is structured so as to benefit the employee and prejudice the employer.
 
F

Fudzy

Guest
Yes, the employee simply walks in and claims "unfair dismissal".
There is no investigation of the actual facts which led to their dismissal.
They just proceed straight into a "conciliation" meeting in which the employee makes their demand.
Usually the employees are advised by the CCMA to ask for one week for every year they have worked.
They then ask the employer what are you going to offer (there is no chance to say anything about why the emplpyee was actually dismissed).
The employer is automatically deemed to have acted illegally and pressure is put on them to "settle" with the employee.
If the employer does not make an offer or rejects the employees demands, then they proceed straight into the "arbitration" part of the meeting.
It is at that point that the CCMA usually rules against the employer (based on some petty technicality) and confirms the employees demands.
If the employer still refuses to accept the arbitration they have to proceed to the labour court (at considerable cost to the employer in time and money).

The entire system is structured so as to benefit the employee and prejudice the employer.
Geez well that's not right at all. If all the correct processes have been followed (verbal/written/final warnings) then those should be admitted as evidence. I would take the CCMA to court if they didn't acknowledge these things.
 

ISP cash cow

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
5,722
Government is made up by more than just the ANC though, the opposition parties are welcome to and do throw their weight in on issues that are unjust, are they doing that here?
and the majority of the government would be? hence the reason why the secrecy bill and the E-tolls can be pushed through even with all the other parties totally opposing it


Really? Is that over and above severance pay?
Spoken like a person that has not been on the other side of the table at the CCMA. I have been at the CCMA where they literally just start with numbers (high numbers) to get bartered down to meet in the middle. No basis on how they got to that figure or why they are even asking for that figure.

If the CCMA was more orientated towards protecting businesses rather than people it probably wouldn't be there
It seems your logic is based on your misunderstanding of statements.

I never said the CCMA should be protecting businesses, they are there for the employees but they also need to know when the employer has a case for fair dismissal and then they should be impartial enough to say so and tell the employee they have no chance with the case. This sadly (well while I was still dealing with the CCMA) doesn't happen and then the "pay off's" start.

I have been through these processes a number of times and I lost my faith with the CCMA when a person we had caught with video evidence and individual statements stealing from our company (who we were kind enough to drop criminal charges, so that he could get another job without a criminal record) was still able to fleece the company for remuneration.
 
F

Fudzy

Guest
I think you misunderstand what the role of the CCMA is. It is not there to protect employees. They are supposed to be neutral in conciliation, mediation and arbitration. Supposed to be, at least. In other words in practice, they favour employees which means that companies tend to get a raw deal in many cases...
It should be, I was just saying if it was geared more to protect the companies there would be A LOT more unfair dismissals, I once had to be a character witness for a friend who was being pestered by her boss, she tried to file sexual harassment charges but her boss fired her. HR obviously realised they didn't want this going to the CCMA so they kept it in-house.

Incedentally, just been to the CCMA website where it states:

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) is a dispute resolution body established in terms of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 (LRA). It is an independent body, does not belong to and is not controlled by any political party, trade union or business.
 

DJ...

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
70,287
Geez well that's not right at all. If all the correct processes have been followed (verbal/written/final warnings) then those should be admitted as evidence. I would take the CCMA to court if they didn't acknowledge these things.
Do you have any idea how expensive that would be? And you probably wouldn't be able to recover the costs either. It has to be lobbied at a legislature level, unfortunately that is not likely to be changed though for various obvious political reasons. So we sit with a very unfair and corrupt system without any sensible recourse.

They do however take into consideration things like written warnings, verbal warnings etc. but they often throw them out as "unfair" or "based on prejudice" which is a favourite of theirs. They do not have to motivate their reasoning which means that from the outset, you are playing catch-up with the employee. However in many cases if you have physical evidence of criminal acts then they will throw the case out. It's a tough one to crack though and often isn't worth the effort...
 

DJ...

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
70,287
It should be, I was just saying if it was geared more to protect the companies there would be A LOT more unfair dismissals
Bullschit. What you would have though would be a reasonable number of fair dismissals. Remaining neutral doesn't mean that they stop doing their job - they merely perform their functions within the mandate provided and within the rule of law. There certainly wouldn't be an increase in unfair dismissals as long as the CCMA do their job.

What will result however, would be a far more efficient workforce. And an efficient workforce is the backbone of a strong economy...
 

DJ...

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
70,287
Incedentally, just been to the CCMA website where it states:

It is an independent body, does not belong to and is not controlled by any political party, trade union or business.
That is correct, technically. However it does the government's bidding, so to speak...
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
102,936
Geez well that's not right at all. If all the correct processes have been followed (verbal/written/final warnings) then those should be admitted as evidence. I would take the CCMA to court if they didn't acknowledge these things.
You have to pay a "financial deposit" in order to take them to court. :mad:

The actual processes followed only come into play in the arbitration part of the meeting... and even then, the first miniscule irregularity is seized upon and judgment is inevitably given in favour of the employee. It doesn't even have to be a failure to follow procedure, it can be something arbitrary like "the manager was angry when he wrote this e-mail". Well, duh!

The last lady we dismissed who went there actually go to the point in the office where she refused to do any work and she refused to speak to anyone.
She just came in and sat in her office all day playing on the computer.

It took us twenty verbal warnings, three written warnings, three final warnings, and three hearings to finally get her dismissed.
We used our labour broking company to handle all of the disciplinary action.
And she still went to the CCMA, and she still got awarded an EXTRA months salary, despite it being summary dismissal and despite the fact that we had still paid her for her current month, all her leave pay and her provident fund withdrawal.
 

Sherbang

Executive Member
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
9,874
Well the CCMA is a government department, which is run by? To me this is where the problem comes in whereby a government who is in bed with a union tends to try and appeases the union by throwing in some gestures to go against business.
It is not a government department :confused:
It is an independent body, does not belong to and is not controlled by government, any political party, trade union or business.

The Governing Body is the supreme policy making body of the CCMA and consists of a chairperson, three state representatives; three representatives from organised labour and three representatives from organised business; all of whom are nominated by NEDLAC and the Director of the CCMA nominated by the Governing Body.
 
Last edited:

DigitalSoldier

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Messages
10,184
If the problem employee is in the wrong then you have nothing to worry about.
Not true.

One of our employees haven't showed up to work for an entire month! We tried to call him our legal department tried to reach him. We did everything possible to try and find him.

At the end of March 2012 we didn't pay him anything because he was absent the entire time. He then ran to the CCMA, he complained we fired him because he was absent from work. He also said his issue is not being fired, but the procedure that we followed.

The slacker won the case at the CCMA and we now have to pay him R3300.00

Thing is we never fired him, we tried to contact him and that was also not possible. And yet the stupid employee won the case. Our labour lawyers argued we tried to contact him to follow the correct procedure. At the moment they are busy trying to change schedule another hearing because the CCMA judgement was incorrect.
 

DJ...

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
70,287
It is not a government department :confused:
It is an independent body, does not belong to and is not controlled by government, any political party, trade union or business.
Anyone who has dealt with the CCMA knows this to be bull. There has from its very inception been political interference with the CCMA...
 
Top