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
EMPLOYEES MAY APPROACH THE LABOUR COURT DIRECTLY TO ENFORCE THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE BASIC CONDITIONS OF THE EMPLOYMENT ACT
By Jacques van Wyk, Director; Andre van Heerden, Senior Associate; and Chelsea Roux, Candidate Attorney ISSUE Whether the Labour Court [...]
THE RESTRICTIONS ON A COMMISSIONER TO DEAL WITH A DISPUTE NOT FORMALLY BEFORE HIM
By Jacques van Wyk, Director; Andre van Heerden, Senior Associate; and Chelsea Roux, Candidate Attorney ISSUE Whether the commissioner acted [...]
SECTION 198A(3)(B) DEEMING PROVISION: LIABILITY FOR THE CLIENT EMPLOYER REGARDLESS OF THE ROLE THAT THE EMPLOYER STILL RETAINS
By Jacques van Wyk, Director; Andre van Heerden, Senior Associate; and Chelsea Roux, Candidate Attorney ISSUE In the case of [...]
RESIGNATION WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT – A TALE OF CONFUSION
By Sandile Tom, Director and Dale Adams, Candidate Attorney It is trite law that certain prescribed periods of notice become [...]
DISMISSED FOR NOT ACCEPTING AN EMPLOYER’S DEMAND – WHEN IS THIS AUTOMATICALLY UNFAIR?
By Bradley Workman-Davies, Director The Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 ("LRA"), which generally protects employees in South Africa against [...]
CONDUCT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS BILL
By Tracy-Lee Janse van Rensburg, Director and Reuben Lebelo, Candidate Attorney Following on the Financial Sector Regulation Act, 2017 ("FSR Act"), [...]
