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
Achieving meaningful access to medicines: a patient-centric approach – the next healthcare debate
Access to medicines Access to medicines may be a challenge for patients requiring access to innovative medicines where the costs [...]
Uber drivers’ long and bumpy ride to becoming workers
by Sandile July, Director; Lloyd Abraham, Director; Sandile Tom, Director; and Lisa Appelgryn, Senior Associate 1. This article explores the [...]
Business Rescue Practitioners – mind the trap!
by Roxanne Webster, Senior Associate and Siyabonga Galela, Candidate Attorney Reviewed by Eric Levenstein, Director and Lauren Becker, Director Introduction [...]
Shareholder “divorce” – is dissolution of the company a viable remedy?
by Rachel Winterbach, Candidate Attorney reviewed by Pierre le Roux, Director and Jarryd Mardon, Senior Associate It occurs in [...]
Duchess of Sussex, Privacy and POPIA
by Ahmore Burger-Smidt, Director and Head of Data Privacy Practice and member of Competition Law Practice; and Nyiko Mathebula, Candidate [...]
Minister Patel clarifies his views on employee share ownership programmes and Broad Based Ownership Schemes but uncertainty continues
by Pieter Steyn, Director and Head of Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) Practice A new Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment [...]
