CCMA - for or against employers?

Labour Q&A with Terry Bell

Fin24 user Johann le Roux says it is dangerously misleading to state that the Labour Relations Amendment Act, 2014  is “in force”.

Adding his voice to the ongoing labour debate and in reaction to Terry Bell's Inside Labour column Let's protect the vulnerable, Johann writes:

The new LRA has been signed by the president and as stipulated in Section 45 “…..and comes into operation on a date fixed by the President by proclamation in the Government Gazette”. It is dangerously misleading to state that the Labour Relations Amendment Act, 2014  is “in force”. (See GG No. 37921)
 
A casual perusal of changes to Section 198 will also reveal that additional protection in respect of atypical employees (contract/casual) will only apply to employees below the “earnings threshold” - currently those who earn less than about R200 000 pa.
 
Finally the parties who are subjected to most intimidation at the CCMA are small employers, who are dealt with as guilty until they prove their innocence, in a system biased against all employers.

It is interesting to note that over 25% of the cases dealt with at the CCMA are lodged by domestics who are mostly not employed by hard core capitalists or experts in labour law. Surely small employers should be entitled to legal assistance under these circumstances?
      
Bell responds:

Hi Johann,

I concede that "signed into law" would have been more accurate, but it is perhaps a little hair splitting.  

There has always been a ceiling of income regarding access to the CCMA process. It has merely been raised.

I, along with  most people involved in the CCMA would dispute that there is a bias against employers. While it is true that many cases are brought by domestic workers, they remain, as all available evidence shows, among the most disadvantaged and abused sections of employees.  

And while their employers - along with most small employers - may not be experts in labour law, they are usually (the nature of our society being what it is) better able to express themselves than the workers they hire. Why then, before an independent commissioner, should they have the added advantage of legal assistance?

The debate goes on!

* Add your voice or just drop Terry a labour question. Follow Terry on twitter @telbelsa.

Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on Fin24 have been independently written by members of the Fin24 community. The views of users published on Fin24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent those of Fin24.