The relationship between workers and employers in South Africa is governed by various labour statutes such as the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA). The Basic Conditions of Employment Act regulates the working conditions of employees, including working hours, leave, particulars of employment and remuneration and termination of employment, etc. The purpose is to ensure that employees are not exploited and that they do not have to negotiate for these basic conditions of service. The BCEA does not prescribe the minimum remuneration that an employer must pay an employee, so the BCEA empowers the Minister of Labour to make sectoral determinations for sectors or areas of the economy that are typically in a weak bargaining position or not well organised by trade unions. Sectoral determinations are a means to protect vulnerable employees by fixing conditions of employment as well as minimum wages of employees that would otherwise have to be secured through collective bargaining. Employers and employees as well as their representatives are fully consulted during the process of making sectoral determinations. These consultations are held occasionally and the employers and employees can participate in the making of a sectoral determination that will regulate their employment relationship, either by making written submissions to the Department of Labour or by giving input at the public hearings that are usually held by the Department. The Minister is also advised in this regard by a body called Employment Conditions Commission (ECC), which is an independent statutory body established in terms of section 59(1) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act. The Minister of Labour, after consultation with NEDLAC appoints the commissioners. The ECC’s mandate is a broad one, with its primary function being to advise the Minister of Labour on various matters concerning the BCEA. These include among others, the making of sectoral determinations, monitoring trends in collective bargaining for their possible impact on the BCEA. The issues highlighted above will be dealt with in detail in this paper.

<p><font size="3" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Arial"> <p align="left">In this study, I will look at the common law principle of offset to see whether it can be applied to employers making deductions against employees for loss or damage. Notice is a quantifiable amount and is a legal debt / therefore. it should be able to be applied as an offset. Two subsections deal with deductions / after looking carefully at the wording of theses subsections I will try to determine whether the one is alternate to the other, or whether the narrow interpretation that the Department of Labour gives to the statute is accurate. A narrow interpretation of the law states that the employee must sign an acknowledgement of debt. However, employees often refuse to sign an acknowledgement of debt, thereby frustrating the law. Could this possibly have been the intentions of the drafters? Surely not, yet the Department of Labour, by having a narrow interpretation of the law, see it as such and as a result the employer is left out of pocket. In this mini-thesis, I will look at the way the law should be interpreted and the way it should be applied in practice.</p> <p>&nbsp / </p> </font></font></p>

<p><font size="3" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Arial"> <p align="left">In this study, I will look at the common law principle of offset to see whether it can be applied to employers making deductions against employees for loss or damage. Notice is a quantifiable amount and is a legal debt / therefore. it should be able to be applied as an offset. Two subsections deal with deductions / after looking carefully at the wording of theses subsections I will try to determine whether the one is alternate to the other, or whether the narrow interpretation that the Department of Labour gives to the statute is accurate. A narrow interpretation of the law states that the employee must sign an acknowledgement of debt. However, employees often refuse to sign an acknowledgement of debt, thereby frustrating the law. Could this possibly have been the intentions of the drafters? Surely not, yet the Department of Labour, by having a narrow interpretation of the law, see it as such and as a result the employer is left out of pocket. In this mini-thesis, I will look at the way the law should be interpreted and the way it should be applied in practice.</p> <p>&nbsp / </p> </font></font></p>

Magister Philosophiae - MPhil / Sectoral Determination 9,1 Wholesale and Retail Sector echoes the wording found in the Basic Conditions of Employment Act2 when it comes to the section pertaining to deductions from employees’ remuneration. It is unclear how an employer may lawfully make a deduction (other than those required by law) from an employee’s remuneration in order to recover costs such as till shortages, stock losses and improper notice. Loss and damages are common problems faced not only by retailers but by all employers, yet the two governing bodies, that is, the Department of Labour and the CCMA, fail to offer any assistance to the employer in this regard. The law is unfairly biased against the employer, who may be financially unable to recover from losses caused by an employee and may face closure should it be unable to recover losses suffered. The two remedies available to the employer are civil action and criminal action against the employee. However, both have proven to be inadequate for recovering losses incurred. Furthermore, the employer will have already incurred losses and therefore can ill afford the money or the time to pursue these options. The Small Claims Court does offer some relief to a smaller employer wanting to claim to a maximum of R7000, but companies are excluded from this mechanism as the rules of the Small Claims Court specifically exclude them from using this forum. In this study, I will look at the common law principle of offset to see whether it can be applied to employers making deductions against employees for loss or damage. Notice is a quantifiable amount and is a legal debt; therefore. it should be able to be applied as an offset. Two subsections deal with deductions; after looking carefully at the wording of theses subsections I will try to determine whether the one is alternate to the other, or whether the narrow interpretation that the Department of Labour gives to the statute is accurate. A narrow interpretation of the law states that the employee must sign an acknowledgement of debt. However, employees often refuse to sign an acknowledgement of debt, thereby frustrating the law. Could this possibly have been the intentions of the drafters? Surely not, yet the Department of Labour, by having a narrow interpretation of the law, see it as such and as a result the employer is left out of pocket. In this mini-thesis, I will look at the way the law should be interpreted and the way it should be applied in practice. 1 Sectoral Determination 9: Wholesale and Retail Sector, Government Gazette No. 24207 2 The Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 What problems does this ambiguity create? Some problems could include a higher case load for the Department of Labour, demotivated employees, increased tension in the workplace and frustrated employers. I also consider comparative labour law to see if other countries faced with similar situations have made any allowances for such circumstances. Aims of this mini-thesis: 1. To highlight the problems and ambiguities in the interpretation and application of section 34 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA)3 and section 8 of the Sectoral Determination 9(SD9)4 2. To recommend, propose and encourage a practical solution for employers to implement in the workplace 3. To improve the situation for employers under the current structure. 4. To lead the legislature drafters to amend or redraft these sections

M. Tech. Strategic Communication / The aim of this research is to analyse the perceived effectiveness of communication with visually impaired employees in the South African workplace. Moores (2002) model of social information needs of communication was used as a framewrok for the research.

Income inequality is prevalent in both developed and developing countries. In all of these countries there are workers who are highly paid while others are given very low wages. The disgruntled low-paid workers in these countries usually force their governments to intervene in the labour market and introduce the redistributive policies like the minimum wage policy. Governments usually accede to these demands of low-paid workers because they do not want to invite political troubles. That led to an increase in the number of countries using minimum wage policy as redistributive mechanism in the late 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. Minimum wage policy is, however, a very controversial issue. Supporters of minimum wages regard the policy as ideal because it provides social protection to un-unionised and low-paid workers with little or no bargaining power. The opponents of the policy on the other hand argue that wages in the labour market should be determined by the forces of demand and supply. It is argued that wages that are artificially determined lead to the rationing of jobs and displacement of the very same low-paid workers that the policy is intended to protect, as employers are forced to replace unskilled workers with skilled workers and machines. South Africa’s agricultural sector workers were among some of the least paid workers in the country. Employers were able to exploit these workers because they were not protected by any labour legislation that workers in other sectors were afforded. Farm workers were only protected by common law. It was only in the 1990s that labour legislations like Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Labour Relations Act, Employment Equity Act, Extension of Security Act and Tenure Act and Skills Development Act were extended to the agricultural sector in an attempt to protect the working conditions of vulnerable workers. These acts as well failed to improve the working conditions of the agricultural sector workers and that prompted the Minister of Labour to instruct the Director-General of Labour to conduct the necessary investigations to see if it could be necessary to introduce minimum standard of employment in the sector, including minimum wages. That led to the adoption of Sectoral Determination 8 of 2003 which introduced sectoral minimum wage in the sector. The sectoral minimum wage which came into effect in 2003 was increased annually by the rate of inflation plus one per cent. It was only in 2013, after the Western Cape farm workers went on strike for higher wages, that the minimum wage was raised by 52 per cent. As argued by the opponents of minimum wages, job losses occurred among unskilled workers. The implementation of minimum wage policy in the agricultural sector was problematic, as the policy was not properly complied with due to several compliance concerns. Apart from there being insufficient inspectors to monitor and investigate cases of non-compliance, inspectors were under-trained and under-equipped. Fines imposed on offenders were too small, which further encouraged disregard for the policy. / Economics / M. Com. (Economics)