Arbcor - Pty Ltd

26/11/2023

CUSTOMER SERVICE WHAT YOU MUST NOT DO AS EMPLOYEE OR OWNER

SAM WALTON words of wisdom!
“Believe me, the customer never comes back!”
Years ago, Sam Walton, founder of the world's largest retail chain, Wal-Mart, opened a training program for its employees, with much wisdom. When everyone was expecting a talk about sales and service, he started with these words:
"I'm the guy who goes to a restaurant, sits at the table and waits patiently, while the waiter does everything but write down my order.
I'm the guy who goes to a store and waits quietly, while the salesmen finish their personal conversations.
I’m the guy who walks into a gas station and never uses his horn, but patiently waits for the employee to finish reading his newspaper.
I'm the man who explains his desperate urgency for one piece, but doesn't complain that he only gets it after three weeks of waiting.
I'm the guy that, when he enters a commercial establishment, seems to be asking for a favor, begging for a smile or just hoping to be noticed.
You must be thinking I'm a quiet, patient, never troublesome type... Get fooled.
Do you know who I am? I am the customer who never returns!
I love seeing millions spent
annually on all sorts of ads to get me back to your company. Because when I first went there, all they should have done was just a little, simple and inexpensive kindness: treat me with a little more courtesy.
Theres only one boss: THE CUSTOMER. And he can fire everyone in the company from the president to the janitor, simply taking their money to spend elsewhere. "
Want to be successful, have better customer service than anyone else.

Call now to connect with business.

01/03/2023

Big change for employees in South Africa from tomorrow – what you need to know
Staff Writer28 February 2023

South Africa’s new earnings threshold comes into effect from Wednesday (1 March), which will see many employees in the country lose automatic protections under the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA).

As of 1 March 2023, South Africans will see the implementation of the increased annual earnings threshold determined by the Minister of Employment and Labour. The new threshold is set to R241,110.59 a year, or approximately R20,092 a month.

According to legal experts from Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr (CDH), in terms of the BCEA, employees earning in excess of the earnings threshold are excluded from the provisions which regulate:

Ordinary hours of work;
Overtime;
Compressed working weeks;
Averaging of hours of work;
Meal intervals;
Daily and weekly rest periods;
Sunday pay;
Pay for night work; and
Pay for work on public holidays.

“This effectively means that there will now be more people who are not protected by the BCEA. Employers and staff should ensure that they understand the impact of this on employees affected by the change as it could have a material influence salary expectations etc – especially in cases where there is a reasonable amount of overtime, night or weekend work,” CDH said.

On top of provisions in the BCEA, the new threshold will also impact other areas of labour law, the legal experts said.

With regards to the Labour Relations Act (LRA), employees earning in excess of the earnings threshold are not subject to provisions around labour brokers and being deemed employees for purposes of the LRA.

In addition tot his, employees earning in excess of the earnings threshold fall outside the scope of the provisions relating to fixed-term employees who are deemed to be employed indefinitely after three months (in the absence of justifiable reasons for fixing the term of the contract).

Looking at the Employment Eequity Act, an employee earning in excess of the earnings threshold, who has a dispute under Chapter II of the EEA relating to unfair discrimination, is not permitted to refer the dispute to the CCMA for arbitration , unless the dispute relates to alleged unfair discrimination on the grounds of sexual harassment, or the parties all agree to arbitration.

In these cases, employees are obliged to refer the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication.

The sections covered in these acts are intended to protect vulnerable employees and regulate, amongst other things, hours of work, overtime, work over weekends, lunch breaks and even where labour disputes need to be handled.

Employees earning under this threshold enjoy the full protection of the BCEA, and can, for example, demand overtime pay at a rate of 1.5 times, or legally refuse to do more than the 45 hours of work a week.

What are earnings?

For purposes of determining whether an employee earns in excess of the earnings threshold, “earnings” means an employee’s regular annual remuneration:

Before the deduction of income tax;
Before the deduction of pension fund contributions;
Before the deduction of medical aid contributions and similar payments;
Excluding similar contributions made by the employer in respect of the employee.

This is subject to the proviso that subsistence and transport allowances received, achievement awards and payments for overtime worked do not fall within the scope of remuneration.

06/02/2023

EMPLOYEES MISREPRESENTED QUALIFICATIONS

Umgeni Water v Naidoo and Another (11489/2017P) [2022] ZAKZPHC 72 (15 December 2022)

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”[1]

By Tessa Kassel (General, Domestic and Professional Employer’s Organisation)

2023/02
An employee, one Sheldon Naidoo (SN), who worked at Umgeni Water was appointed as part of the employer’s graduate programme. One of the requirements for admission was that the candidate must possess a degree in chemical engineering.

SN had attached a chemical engineering degree, which he claimed was conferred on him by the University of KwaZulu-Natal, to his application form.

Eight years went by before the validity of SN’s qualification was tested when he applied for another position as a process technician. He had to once again attach his qualification to the application form. It was then that Umgeni Water queried the validity of the degree.
Umgeni Water conducted a qualification check and sent the supposed degree to the KwaZulu-Natal University for verification. To everyone’s surprise, the University had no records of SN having been awarded the degree.

Umgeni Water confronted SN about the fraudulent degree. He was given the benefit of the doubt and was asked to at least submit his academic transcripts, graduation photos, or the names of fellow students he would have worked with in his final year. SN said that he had misplaced his academic transcripts, he had no photos of the graduation because he did not attend his graduation ceremony, and he could not recall the names of the students he would have worked with in his final year.

SN, feeling the pressure, resigned with immediate effect on 29 November 2016, claiming he had an illness that posed a serious threat to his life and on medical advice, he was compelled to stop working. A little too convenient, perhaps?

Umgeni Water then decided to sue SN for the amount of money paid to him during his employment. Umgeni Water claimed that the employment contract had been invalid from the start as SN had fraudulently submitted a false degree.

This case went all the way to the Pietermaritzburg High Court for adjudication. The Court had to determine whether SN had indeed graduated from the University of KwaZulu-Natal with a chemical engineering degree, or if the degree was fraudulent as then the contract of employment was null and void, which may permit the employer to claim for the repayment of all monies SN had earned in the eight years he worked for Umgeni Water.

The Court ruled it was apparent that the degree was in fact fraudulent. Then the Court held that no person should be unjustly enriched by gross misrepresentation. SN had benefitted from eight years of earnings and should never have been allowed to even be appointed.

Once the contract between the parties was determined to be null and void from the beginning, Umgeni Water had a valid claim for the repayment of monies.

Umgeni Water claimed a sum of R2 203 565,04 as the amount it paid SN over the years. There was no way SN had that sum of money to repay Umgeni Water. So, the remedy available to Umgeni Water was that they were authorised to attach the monies from SN’s pension fund. Section 37D(1)(b) of the Pension fund Act allows employers who have been victim to fraud to recover monies lost in this way.

Legislation

As from 2019, the National Qualifications Framework Amendment Act stipulates that it is a criminal offence to misrepresent qualifications. The punishment for doing so may be a hefty fine and / or imprisonment for a period of up to five years. The National Qualifications Framework, furthermore, advises employers to conduct verification checks with the National Learners’ Records Database before appointing potential employees.[2]

Verification checks are indeed vitally important and should form part of the application process. Conducting these checks will protect the employer against the potential risk of financial damages as a result of an applicant’s misrepresentation. What often happens is that employers are so desperate to fill a vacancy and appoint the employee they believe meets all the minimum requirements for the job, that they only conduct the checks at a later stage. However, it is better to delay the appointment process until all the relevant verifications have been done.

Employers are obliged to report this kind of misrepresentation to the state under the Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities Act. An employee who participates in fraud, such as in the case of SN and Umgeni Water, should be criminally liable for such deception.[3]

The case of the employee who misrepresented his qualifications
Umgeni Water v Naidoo and Another (11489/2017P) [2022] ZAKZPHC 72 (15 December 2022)

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”[1]

By Tessa Kassel (General, Domestic and Professional Employer’s Organisation)

2023/02

An employee, one Sheldon Naidoo (SN), who worked at Umgeni Water was appointed as part of the employer’s graduate programme. One of the requirements for admission was that the candidate must possess a degree in chemical engineering.

SN had attached a chemical engineering degree, which he claimed was conferred on him by the University of KwaZulu-Natal, to his application form.

Eight years went by before the validity of SN’s qualification was tested when he applied for another position as a process technician. He had to once again attach his qualification to the application form. It was then that Umgeni Water queried the validity of the degree.



Umgeni Water conducted a qualification check and sent the supposed degree to the KwaZulu-Natal University for verification. To everyone’s surprise, the University had no records of SN having been awarded the degree.



Umgeni Water confronted SN about the fraudulent degree. He was given the benefit of the doubt and was asked to at least submit his academic transcripts, graduation photos, or the names of fellow students he would have worked with in his final year. SN said that he had misplaced his academic transcripts, he had no photos of the graduation because he did not attend his graduation ceremony, and he could not recall the names of the students he would have worked with in his final year.



SN, feeling the pressure, resigned with immediate effect on 29 November 2016, claiming he had an illness that posed a serious threat to his life and on medical advice, he was compelled to stop working. A little too convenient, perhaps?

Umgeni Water then decided to sue SN for the amount of money paid to him during his employment. Umgeni Water claimed that the employment contract had been invalid from the start as SN had fraudulently submitted a false degree.

This case went all the way to the Pietermaritzburg High Court for adjudication. The Court had to determine whether SN had indeed graduated from the University of KwaZulu-Natal with a chemical engineering degree, or if the degree was fraudulent as then the contract of employment was null and void, which may permit the employer to claim for the repayment of all monies SN had earned in the eight years he worked for Umgeni Water.



The Court ruled it was apparent that the degree was in fact fraudulent. Then the Court held that no person should be unjustly enriched by gross misrepresentation. SN had benefitted from eight years of earnings and should never have been allowed to even be appointed.



So, once the contract between the parties was determined to be null and void from the beginning, Umgeni Water had a valid claim for the repayment of monies.



Umgeni Water claimed a sum of R2 203 565,04 as the amount it paid SN over the years. There was no way SN had that sum of money to repay Umgeni Water. So, the remedy available to Umgeni Water was that they were authorised to attach the monies from SN’s pension fund. Section 37D(1)(b) of the Pension fund Act allows employers who have been victim to fraud to recover monies lost in this way.



Legislation

As from 2019, the National Qualifications Framework Amendment Act stipulates that it is a criminal offence to misrepresent qualifications. The punishment for doing so may be a hefty fine and / or imprisonment for a period of up to five years. The National Qualifications Framework, furthermore, advises employers to conduct verification checks with the National Learners’ Records Database before appointing potential employees.[2]



Verification checks are indeed vitally important and should form part of the application process. Conducting these checks will protect the employer against the potential risk of financial damages as a result of an applicant’s misrepresentation. What often happens is that employers are so desperate to fill a vacancy and appoint the employee they believe meets all the minimum requirements for the job, that they only conduct the checks at a later stage. However, it is better to delay the appointment process until all the relevant verifications have been done.



Employers are obliged to report this kind of misrepresentation to the state under the Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities Act. An employee who participates in fraud, such as in the case of SN and Umgeni Water, should be criminally liable for such deception.[3]

05/12/2022

Motor vehicle accidents, IOD or not?



(Article updated 29 Nov 2022)



The Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, Act 130 of 1993, largely governs work-related compensation claims and related matters in South Africa.



The main objective of the Act is to provide compensation for disablement caused by occupational injuries or diseases sustained or contracted by employees or for death resulting from injuries or diseases and provide for matters related to this. In terms of the Act, compensation for employees and their dependants includes medical costs or constant attendance care allowance and funeral costs where applicable.



Section 1 of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA) defines an occupational injury as ‘‘an accident arising out of and in the course of an employee's employment and resulting in a personal injury, illness or the death of the employee’’. To qualify for a COIDA-related claim, an accident should ‘‘arise out of and in the course of an employee's employment’’. These claims are generally referred to as injury on duty (IOD) claims, and are claimed from the Compensation Fund. The main objective of the Compensation Fund is to provide compensation for disability, illness and death resulting from occupational injuries and diseases.



In South Africa, many road accidents cause serious injuries and death. One of the questions that frequently arise is, ‘‘If an employee were injured or dies because of a work-related vehicle accident, would the employee (or, in case of a fatal accident, the dependants of the deceased employee) qualify for compensation?’’



For an IOD or fatality due to a work-related vehicle accident to be claimable from the Compensation Fund, the accident should have occurred while the employee was on duty, carrying out a function that he or she was employed to do.



If the vehicle accident did not occur within the cause and scope of the employee’s duty, costs due to injury could alternatively be covered by the Road Accident Fund (RAF).



The RAF is a statutory body that exists to provide compensation to the people of South Africa in terms of the Road Accident Fund, Act 56 of 1996, for loss or damage as a result of bodily injury or death caused by negligent driving within our borders. The RAF provides compulsory coverage for road users. If a vehicle accident did not occur within the cause and scope of the employee’s duty (if it is not an IOD), victims could for example file a claim for compensation against the RAF. This coverage covers all people who are involved in an accident, including victims and their dependents.



Not all injuries are covered by the RAF, only injuries that are generally considered as serious.



Neither the RAF nor the Compensation Fund accepts liability for vehicle damages.



Section 22(5) of the COIDA elaborates on travel-related IOD claims. The subsection stipulates that ‘‘the conveyance of an employee free of charge to or from his place of employment for the purposes of his employment by means of a vehicle driven by the employer himself or one of his employees and specially provided by his employer for the purpose of such conveyance, shall be deemed to take place in the course of such employee's employment’’.



For the claim to be accepted by the Compensation Fund, the following criteria must be met:

Was the vehicle provided by the employer?
Was the vehicle provided free of charge?
Was the vehicle provided for the purposes of work/ employment?
Was the vehicle driven by the employer himself or one of his employees?



Claimants should also be able to prove that they travelled on the most economical route to work when the accident occurred.



Employees travelling to the office and back home with a private vehicle would not be covered, as they would not be on duty while en route to work.



On the other hand, employees who travel for business, are drivers of company vehicles, or are transported as part of their job would be covered if they are injured or die due to a work-related vehicle accident.



Call-outs: When an employee is called out to perform work, these individuals would be covered while travelling to work as well as the period during which they perform work for the employer. Please note that these individuals would normally not be covered when travelling back home (except when it is a company vehicle provided free of charge for the purpose of work).



Standby: When a standby worker (like a maintenance worker who is performing official standby duty) is called out by the employer and is injured or dies due to a vehicle accident while travelling to and from work, it should be viewed as an injury on duty. Standby workers who are called out would be covered while travelling to and from work, even if they are making use of private transport.



The organisation’s policy on standby duty may also have an influence on the Compensation Commissioner’s ruling on an IOD.



The following questions are normally asked by the Compensation Commissioner’s office if an employee is involved in a motor vehicle accident and a claim for compensation is lodged:

Describe in detail how and where (street names etc.) the accident happened.
Include detailed statements by the driver of the vehicle and eyewitnesses to the accident, describing how and where (street names, etc.) the accident occurred, as well as a diagram.
Who is the registered owner of the vehicle?
Name the place of departure and the destination of the vehicle at the time of the accident.
Was the vehicle travelling on a direct route to its destination from its place of departure?
What was the purpose of the journey?
Was the vehicle specifically used for the purpose described in the above question? (For example, if the purpose of the journey was to deliver bread, was the vehicle assigned to the task of transporting bread?)
What control did you exercise over the driver of the vehicle for determining the vehicles point and time of departure, destination and route, as well as being able to discontinue the transport at any time?
Was transport supplied free of charge to employees to transport them to and from work?
The registration number(s) of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident.



It is also important to remember that, if there is any uncertainty relating to an IOD, complete and submit the required forms to the Commissioner and allow them to make the ruling on the claim. COIDA always works on the proviso of “at the discretion” of the Compensation Commissioner.



For training or consultations, contact Tinus Boshoff at [email protected].

We will continue to keep you informed and updated.

20/10/2022

27/09/2022

Arbcor (Pty) Ltd offers a one-stop labour, payroll, HR & administration solution for small to corporate businesses. Our team can manage all your labour requirements, financial, payroll and employee structures with integrity, confidentiality and excellent service based on knowledge and experience. Contact us now to arrange for a consultant to come see you.

01/09/2022

Gelukkige Lente dag!! van ons almal by Arbcor - your business solution!

12/08/2022

Arbcor (Pty) Ltd offers a one-stop labour, payroll, HR & administration solution for small to corporate businesses. Our team can manage all your labour requirements, financial, payroll and employee structures with integrity, confidentiality and excellent service based on knowledge and experience. Contact us now to arrange for a consultant to come see you.