Legal updates and opinions
News / News
The Protection from Harassment Act 17 of 2011
The Act provides simple procedures and remedies in addition to those available to employees in terms of other legislation (such as the LRA, Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998, as amended, and Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000, as amended). The Act applies to harassment of both sexual and non-sexual variants.
Non-sexual harassment is conduct which a person knows or ought to know causes harm or inspires the reasonable belief that harm may be caused to the complainant or a related person. This includes following, watching or accosting the complainant or a related person, or loitering near the place where the complainant resides or works. Other forms include unreasonably engaging in communication (which may be verbal or electronic such as email) aimed at the complainant or related person.
If the complainant and harasser are in the same workplace then the employer may incur vicarious liability and have to pay damages. If the complainant obtains a protection order then the employer may be obliged to take measures to ensure that the harasser is able to comply with the protection order. A protection order would be a ground for disciplinary action against the harasser if the action impacts on the employment relationship. If, for example, the employer’s email facilities were used to harass the complainant then the SAPS may request an employer to furnish information relating to emails and employees involved in the harassment. Failure to comply would be regarded as an offence on the part of the employer.
It is essential that employers establish mechanisms to prevent harassment (both non-sexual and sexual) in the workplace. This should include drawing up a harassment policy to inform employees of the serious consequences of breaching the Act.
Latest News
Opportunities for private equity in business rescue
By Elliott Wood, Director and Bafana Ntuli, Director On 23 February 2021, the first ever virtual Ansarada DealMakers Annual Awards [...]
Dismissal of employees who contravene a rule will be fair if proven that employees were aware of the rule or could be reasonably expected to have been aware of it
by Jacques van Wyk, Director; Andre van Heerden, Senior Associate; and Lukrisha Ramadu, Candidate Attorney Issue Whether the employees could [...]
Dismissal of employees who participate in unprotected strikes but comply with employer’s ultimatum may not be dismissed
by Jacques van Wyk, Director; Andre van Heerden, Senior Associate; and Lukrisha Ramadu, Candidate Attorney Issue Whether employers, who issue [...]
Temporary Employer/Employee Relief Scheme (“TERS”) extension: appeal process and update
Temporary Employer/Employee Relief Scheme ("TERS") On 27 March 2021 the Unemployment Insurance Fund (”UIF") issued a letter outlining the appeal [...]
Putting the cart before the horse – the potential unconstitutionality of the Expropriation Bill
The Expropriation Bill B3-2020 South Africans have recently been presented with the Expropriation Bill B3-2020 ("the Bill"). While the Bill [...]
What you need to know about the Expropriation Bill and where it came from
by Thomas Karberg, Candidate Attorney reviewed by Bulelwa Mabasa, Director and Head of Land Reform Restitution & Tenure Practice Introduction [...]
