View Online  |  Forward Newsletter
September 2021

Dear Client / Geagte Kliënt


Newsletter
 
 

Can your Employer force you to take the jab?

‘n Vraag wat beide werkgewers en werknemers toenemend in die gesig staar is of ‘n inenting-mandaat regtens afgedwing kan word deur ‘n werkgewer ten opsigte van alle werknemers en indien dit inderdaad gedoen word en werknemers nie gemaklik daarmee sou wees nie, wat hul onderskeie regte en verpligtinge sou wees.

In mid-June 2021 the Department of Employment and Labour issued an updated Occupational Health and Safety directive which permits an employer to implement a mandatory workplace vaccination policy subject to specific guidelines. Since then, some employers have adopted a mandatory workplace vaccination policy and have been asking their unvaccinated employees to take the Covid-19 vaccine. Questions many have asked are whether they can refuse to take the “jab” and what the consequences might be.

The Occupational Health and Safety Act places an obligation on employers to maintain a workplace that is safe and without risk to the health of employees and persons other than those employed who may be directly affected. In order to create a safe working environment during the Covid-19 pandemic employers developed infection control plans and policies to minimise the spread of Covid-19 in the workplace such as observing social distancing, wearing masks, hand sanitising and encouraging employees to work from home. Until recently these safety measures have been considered sufficient to create a safe working environment in the workplace. Whether a higher standard of safety is now required in the workplace than is required from our frontline workers (who are not all vaccinated) is a question that is worth considering.

According to the directive an employee may refuse the vaccine on medical or constitutional grounds. Medical grounds are “an immediate allergic reaction of any severity to a previous dose or a known (diagnosed) allergy to a component of the Covid-19 vaccines. The Constitutional grounds are the right to bodily integrity in Sec 12 (2) and the right to freedom of religion, belief and opinion in Sec 13 of the Constitution.

An employee who refuses the vaccine should do so in writing and should give the employer reasons for the refusal otherwise it may be regarded as an unreasonable refusal. Such an employee should ask the employer (in writing) to accommodate them in a position that does not require the employee to be vaccinated. The directive states that reasonable accommodation includes permitting the employee to work from home or in isolation at the workplace or outside of ordinary working hours or to wear a N95 face mask. If an employer cannot reasonably accommodate the employee in a position that does not require the vaccine the employer will have to give the employee written reasons why this is impossible. An employer may face a claim of unfair discrimination if reasonable accommodation was indeed possible.

Other than approaching the CCMA in labour disputes, employees have been turning to the Human Rights Commission to protect their rights in the workplace. ‘The opinion of the Human Rights Commission seems to be that the employee’s rights cannot be limited should they refuse to be vaccinated.’ The commission asked employers, traditional leaders, church leaders and others to allow and assist those who want to be vaccinated and also to respect the choices of those who do not want to be vaccinated. The chairperson of the commission stated that it will be a violation to threaten, stigmatise, victimise and discriminate against those who choose not to be vaccinated.

 

Taking disciplinary measure against employees who do not wish to take the vaccine is said to be a high-risk approach which could lead to constructive dismissal, breach of contract and discrimination claims against the employer. Whether employers will be entitled to dismiss employees who refuse to be vaccinated will have to be determined by looking at the particular circumstances of each case and the principles of fairness and equity will have to prevail.

Regards / Groete,

Hennie, Eberhard & Cheryl-Anne

 
 
 
ArticleImage  
Uitsetting geweier – Grondeieneaars, onregmatige Okkupeerders en die toets vir “regverdigheid en billikheid”

Hier is nog ‘n waarskuwing aan grondeienaars, kopers van eiendom en verhuurders om uiters versigting met “onregmatige okkupeerders” te werk te gaan.

Ons bespreek ‘n saak wat onlangs deur die Hoogste Hof van Appél beslis is, waar ‘n uitsettingsbevel teen ‘n bejaarde weduwee en haar gestremde seun tersyde gestel is.

Die eienaar het die eiendom op ‘n likwidasie-veiling aangekoop. Hierna het hy oënskynlik aan die streng vereistes van die Wet op Voorkoming van Onregmatige Uitsetting en Onregmatige Okkupasie van Grond, oftewel “PIE” (“the Prevention of Illegal Eviction and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act”) voldoen. Nietemin is die eienaar se regte getroef deur die Hooggeregshof se verpligting om te verseker dat elke uitsetting “regverdig en billik” is.

Read More
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Estate Planning and Wills: A Checklist to Protect Your Family  
ArticleImage

We find ourselves in the midst of a deadly pandemic, yet incredibly stats suggest that up to 80% of South Africans have no “Last Will and Testament” in place.

We discuss firstly how and why leaving your loved ones a will as part of a full estate plan will protect them, in their hour of greatest need, from unnecessary uncertainty, worry and risk.

We move on to share a simple 15-point checklist which will help you leave a lasting legacy to your family, maximised and structured to look after them all when you are no longer around to do that yourself.

Read More
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ArticleImage  
‘n Waarskuwing van Een Miljoen Rand: Neem die nodige stappe wanneer werknemers die aftree-ouderdom bereik

Dit gebeur al hoe meer gereeld dat werknemers wat die “aftree-ouderdom” bereik, nie gereed is om op te hou met werk nie. Hulle kom dan met hul werkgewers ooreen om aan te bly en aan te hou met werk.

Dit klink na ‘n wen-wen oplossing vir almal. ‘n Onlangse uitspraak van die  Arbeidsappèlhof wys egter dat werkgewers hierdie proses versigting moet bestuur en al die potensiële gevare sorgvuldig moet oorweeg. In hierdie saak het die betrokke werknemer met ‘n ooreengekome aftree-ouderdom van 65, vir ‘n verdere vier jaar na hierdie aftree-ouderdom by sy werkgewer aangebly. Die betrokke werknemer het duidelik met Paul McCartney saamgestem dat “aftrede vir mense is wat nie hul werk geniet nie”. 

Die werknemer het hierna ‘n vrywillige skeidingspakket aanvaar, en ook in ‘n eis van R1 miljoen vir vergoeding teenoor die werkgewer geslaag. Dit behoort ‘n ernstige waarskuwing aan alle werkgewers te wees om nie die kwessie van “voortgesette diens na aftrede” ligtelik op te neem nie.

Read More
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Don’t Risk Consequential “Loss of Profits” Damages: Check Your Contracts and Insurance!  
ArticleImage

Running a business comes with many advantages, but also with risks. One of them is being sued for damages if you cause anyone else any form of loss.

Whilst you can mitigate such risks on both a practical and a legal level, and whilst your business insurance may well cover you against claims for loss caused by you, it is essential to understand that a damages claim against you could be for an uninsured “consequential” loss, such as perhaps a “loss of profits” claim. 

As shown in a recent High Court case, you could find yourself “up the creek without a paddle” on that one – liable for the damages, but with no insurance cover. 

Read More
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Our Directors
             
       
    Eberhard
Kruger
DIRECTOR
021 180 4552 / 082 789 1706
ekruger@vzk.co.za
      Cheryl-Anne
Ehrenreich
DIRECTOR
021 180 4564 / 082 783 7242
cheryl@vzk.co.za
      Andre
Van Greunen
DIRECTOR
021 180 4550
andre@vzk.co.za
   
     Full Bio →

       Full Bio →

       Full Bio →

   
         
     
    Marzanne
Van Wyk
DIRECTOR
021 180 4551
marzanne@vzk.co.za
      Kumedzani
Muloiwa
DIRECTOR
021 180 4578
kume@vzk.co.za
   
     

       

   
         
 
 
 
 
 
 

© LawDotNews & Van Zyl Kruger Inc. This newsletter is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

VAN ZYL KRUGER INCORPORATED (REG. NO 2015/174073/21) (VAT NUMBER 413 0273 172)


www.vzk.co.za

Suite 520 Tyger Lake, Niagara Road,
Tyger Waterfront, Bellville, Cape Town

info@vzk.co.za | Reception: 021 180 4550 | Fax: 021 180 4540


DIRECTORS: E S KRUGER (B.COMM LL.B MPRE); C A EHRENREICH (BA.LL.B LL.M); AJ VAN GREUNEN (BPROC, LLB, LLM);
M VAN WYK (B.COM LLB); K MULOIWA (LLB)
ASSOCIATES: S JANSE VAN RENSBURG (B.COM LL.B); L J CHANTLER (B.COMM LL.B);
A BARNARD (B.COM LL.B DIP.FIN PLANNING); B SCHOLTZ (LL.B)
PRACTICE MANAGER: F BRAVENBOER (NDIP FIS)
EXECUTIVE CONSULTANT: HL VAN ZYL (B.PROC) CONSULTANTS: JAL VAN ZYL (B.JURIS LL.B);
C I’ANSON-SPARKS Solicitor in England and Wales (LL.B(HONS), DIP LEGAL PRACTICE)