Do you need further help

with problems at work?

   JOBS

 

  
Home    Advice  
 
Labour Protect Advice Forum -> Labour Protect Advice Forum -> emloyee fire
Post Info TOPIC: emloyee fire
Anonymous

Date:
emloyee fire
Permalink   
 

I have ended an employees position because this employee always have a story not to work, after I have done so here comes a Rautenbach guy and write me a letter I did not respond because the ccma says a employee cannot be represented in this case today the sherrif delivered documents, notice of motion founding affidavit and a lot more 62 pages in the labourcourt what must I do now?

__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   
 

An employee cannot ordinarily be represented at the hearing itself. However, outside of the hearing they have the right to consult with and be represented by an attorney.

The best advice would be to take the documents to your attorney to have them provide you with assistance.



__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   
 

Thank you, please bear with me, I contacted her representative who informed me that the employee was admitted to hospital due to complications in connection with her pregnancy. The representative told me that there is no URGENCY since the dismissal was done a while ago, but based on maternity and complications with pregnancy therefore it is automatically unfair and the reason why we are in court. He said that I am welcome to discuss this case sonder benadeling van regte and see if we can settle this. My question is if there is no haste or urgency as they put it why are we then in court? And what does sonder benadeling van regte mean? Does it say that the employee's rights are protected but if I talk my rights are not there? What is my rights? I don not say that I did not fire her but her pregnancy became a problem and she has no sick leave left or leave for a matter of fact I can not continue operations with an employee that is not at work, don't get me wrong I do have sympathy with her, after all it is her first baby, but I would have rehired her after the fact, I swear to this, now Rautenbach says that I must have provided her with martinity leave and could have opted not to pay salary or only a portion thereof and could have hired a temp in her position for the time been. He is to nice over a phone. I am scared this is a trap what should I do? My lawyer request me to pay over R20 000.00 to go to court with an advocate, I would rather settle this than pay huge amounts. Please help.

__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   
 

"Without Prejudice to Rights" means that nothing that is put on the negotiating table will have any bearing on the rights of the parties until such time as the matter is settled and a deed of settlement is made an order of court, nor may any admission bearing such words that is made in a bona fide attempt to settle be used in court should settlement fail.

 

Settlement is usually recommended to avoid excessive legal costs, but that decision is entirely up to you and will obviously be based on the strength of your case and the perceived benefit of the offer on the table.

Finally, in terms of S187 of the Labour Relations Act states that any dismissal due to the employee's pregnancy, intended pregnancy, or any reason related to her pregnancy is automatically unfair - meaning that there is a rebuttable presumption that it is unfair. This should be borne in mind.



__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   
 

I did went to see them yesterday afternoon, armed with a recorder and ready to walk out at any stage. It was to my amazement that he did not attack me (like you see on TV) but took on the actions, he explained to me just like you did and showed me cases previously in court which he said that the intent was to use. He further explained to me what I should have done, he said that I am nor required to pay salary during pregnancy and that the employee should claim UIF during this time, that I did not know. We have settled this matter that she will be re employed with full back pay as off the date that I fired her, in compensation, I will pay 60% of her salary during the 3 months that she is on maternity leave and "every party for its own costs" he phoned a friend who owns a recruitment agency and I have just interviewed and temporally appointed a lady in her position for 3 months with the remainder of the 40% of her salary. I am seriously considering signing a retainer with them whereas my arrears account can also be collected. He said that he will withdraw the matter in court on Monday and can I receive the paperwork once I attend our meeting on Monday to discuss the retainer and collections. He did however state that he can never act against this employee since it will be a conflict of interest but will arrange someone if necessary. This nightmare now behind me thank you for the advise.

__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Labour Protect Advice Forum -> Labour Protect Advice Forum -> emloyee fire
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us