The three-month programme, which will equip 50 learners with skills designed to maximise workplace learning, was launched in May at Distell in Gauteng, and will be rolled out to Distell Western Cape and Appletiser.

The ‘Effective Behaviours for work’ (EBW) course is the first of its kind, in that it has a syllabus and curriculum and can be assessed and certificated. It was developed on the findings of global research among employers and training providers into the weaknesses in training provision. Says Edexcel’s London-based international business manager Simon Young: “It was found that soft skills are difficult to identify, let alone certificate, but they are necessary for an employee to perform his or her job at the right time and in the right way.

“We developed a programme that encompasses competences that make for a well-rounded employee with the skills, knowledge and behaviours to operate effectively. These include social awareness, self motivation and self-regulation.”

The course comprises two units developed for the UK National Qualifications Framework. ‘Progressing your career’ seeks to develop learner autonomy and promotes understanding of how skills, strengths and talents contribute to choice of career and direction and an appreciation of the value of using others’ feedback for a deeper understanding of strengths and weaknesses. It emphasises the importance of a proactive approach to career development and -planning and draws the distinction between job and career.

The second phase, communication, covers a wide range of interpersonal skills, from delivering confident and articulate presentations, effective persuasion and response to questions to reading the emotional cues of others and tailoring approaches to the needs of the audience.

As a prelude to the pilot, Edexcel delivered the programme to five trainers selected by FoodBev SETA in December 2009.

This initiative is geared for production floor employees, but the EBW programme is also suitable for higher level application, says Edexcel Africa’s regional development manager Jonathan McGill. “Pioneer Foods will implement a more advanced programme later in the year for 17 graduates preparing for the world of work.”

The pilot project continues the well-established association between FoodBev SETA and Edexcel, which saw the latter selected as one of the SETA’s institutes of sectoral or occupational excellence (ISOEs). Edexcel, in turn, afforded five of the SETA’s qualifications international status, giving graduates a globally recognised certificate. This accreditation will be extended to all FoodBev SETA qualifications in due course.

Part of the reason for this misconception is the wording of Schedule 8 of the Labour Relations Act which states that the hearing need not be a formal one. However, the same item requires that the employee be allowed the opportunity to state a case in response to the allegations. The courts have frequently interpreted the latter requirement to mean that the accused employee must be given the right to an unbiased chairperson, to testify, to bring documents, call witnesses and cross examine evidence brought against him/her.

Thus, in order to be able to comply with this the employer needs to set up a formal hearing, the record of which becomes part of the evidence at the CCMA. Because it is at the CCMA where the employer will be required to prove that it complied with legal procedure when dismissing the employee.

Furthermore, where an employee is suspected of poor performance it is not enough to have an informal discussion with the employee about the problem and then to fire him/her the next week. The LRA sets down specific steps to be followed before a dismissal for poor performance can even be considered.
Again it is not practical to comply properly with such stringent requirements in an informal manner because informal processes are difficult to control and to prove.

Therefore, managers must either be thoroughly trained in disciplinary process or the employer must hire a reputable labour law expert to chair its hearings.

Ivan Israelstam – Chief Executive of Labour Law Management Consulting. He may be contacted on (011) 888-7944 or 0828522973 or on e-mail address: labourlaw@absamail.co.za. Go to: www.labourlawadvice.co.za

To attend our seminars on CHANGES AND DANGERS IN LABOUR LAW on 12 March 2010 (JHB) and 14 May 2010 (Cape Town) please contact Ronni at ronni@labourlawadvice.co.za or on 0845217492 or (011) 782-3066.

Microsoft and Prometric have reintroduced the Microsoft ‘Second Shot’ campaign in an effort to encourage people to get certified and subsequently address the ICT skills shortage in Africa.

There is a growing concern that SA will continue to lack ICT skills for years to come, especially considering that less than 50 percent of matriculants passed mathematics and science last year. This will force companies to continue to import skills from other countries and subsequently increase the cost of doing business.

Tracy Leathem, iSolve Learning Solutions Practice Manager, says it is now time for companies to improve on the skills they already have. “In an effort to improve the ICT skills shortage, Microsoft and Prometric have reintroduced the Microsoft ‘Second Shot’ campaign. If learners write a Microsoft International exam and fail on their first attempt, their second attempt is absolutely free.”

The company’s vision is to be the leading Microsoft Technology and Softskills training service provider in Africa. Its core training methodology is ‘Applied Competence’, one that addresses a range of scholastic and technical skills.

“More importantly, iSolve Learning Solutions has a holistic approach that ensures that its students are fully competent, work oriented and can easily integrate into any given environment. This model is effective in the development of career paths and encourages lifelong learning,” she concludes.

For more information contact iSolve Learning Solutions on (011) 807 9525.

An arbitration hearing is very similar a court case. At such hearings employers are charged with unfair practice. However, many employers lose these cases because they ignore the document instructing them to appear. The CCMA notice summoning the employer to the hearing is a relatively harmless looking document. This is because it:

-    Is not served by the Sheriff of the Court

-    Most often arrives on the employer’s fax machine like any ordinary correspondence (and then often gets filed!!)

-    Is not bright pink like a traffic ticket or summons

-    Is not written in bold capital letters

-    Is not headed “SUMMONS”

-    Does not make it clear that an arbitration is a type of court case where a decision seriously damaging to the employer could be made

-    Does not emphasise that you are likely to lose the case if you fail to appear. That is, while the notice states that the proceedings will continue if the employer is absent, this comment is typed in small print and does not make it clear that a default judgement is likely to be made against you.

A default award is a legally binding decision that the CCMA arbitrator may make in the absence of the employer. That is, section 138(5)(b) provides that, if the employer does not attend the arbitration hearing the CCMA can continue with the hearing and make an award based purely on what the employee tells him/her.

A ‘default award’ means that:

-    any evidence that is missing cannot be taken into account in the arbitrator’s award (judgement)
-    if the employer is not present then all of his/her evidence will be missing
-    the arbitrator is not required to postpone the proceedings in order to give the employer a chance to bring its evidence
-    the only evidence that the arbitrator can take into account is that of the employee who may well lie, exaggerate or leave out crucial facts in order to ensure that the award is in his/her favour.

For example, the employee’s evidence might consist merely of a short statement explaining why the dismissal was without good reason. For instance the employee might say that he/she was not even at work on the day the money was stolen. Or the employee might say that he/she was fired without a disciplinary hearing. The arbitrator could accept this as proof of an unfair dismissal. This is because, if the employer is absent, he/she cannot dispute the employee’s testimony and the arbitrator is entitled to accept undisputed testimony as fact.

For example, in the case of GIWUSA obo Nogaga vs Cetronics Security Guards (2004, 1 BALR 30 CCMA) a security guard told the CCMA that he had been tricked into signing a resignation. Even though the arbitrator found the employee’s evidence to be vague and inconsistent the arbitrator still:

-    Held that the employer’s conduct constituted dismissal
-    Found that the dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair
-    Reinstated the employee with retrospective effect to the date of the dismissal.

The reason for this decision despite the employee’s poor evidence was that the employer was not at the hearing to deny the allegations!

The reason for such default judgements include the fact that employers often do not have the legal knowledge, experience and skills to understand the law and its hidden and immensely dangerous provisions. In such circumstances the use of expert legal advice becomes of paramount importance

To attend our 12 March 2010 seminar on CHANGES AND DANGERS IN LABOUR LAW please contact Ronni at ronni@labourlawadvice.co.za or on 0845217492 or (011) 782-3066.

Poor performance of work by employees is a major source of unproductive and unprofitable business in South Africa. It is therefore a major source of frustration for employers. This is more so because employees who perform poorly all well protected by labour law. Even if you have proof that the employee is under performing there is a mine field of procedures you must follow before you discipline and/or dismiss the employee.
Item 9 of the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal in Schedule 8 of the Labour Relations Act (LRA) states that “Any person determining whether a dismissal for poor work performance is unfair should consider –

(a) whether or not the employee failed to meet a performance standard; and
(b) if the employee did not meet a required performance standard whether or not –
(i) the employee was aware, or could reasonably have been expected to be aware, of the required performance standard;
(ii) the employee was given a fair opportunity to meet the required performance standard; and
(iii) dismissal was an appropriate sanction for not meeting the required performance standard.”

In Duff vs McGregor (Pty) Ltd (2004, 1 BALR 21) the arbitrator blamed the employer for the employee’s poor sales performance because the employer could not prove that the targets set were appropriate and attainable. The dismissal was found to be both substantively and procedurally unfair.

The above laws and findings make it crystal clear that every employer must:
draw up attainable performance targets for each and every employee
Induct every employee as to these targets

Keep proof that the above has been done

Ensure that their managers undergo intensive training by a legal expert in the setting and enforcement of performance standards.