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
What’s in a name – Trade marks and Brooklyn Beckham
by Donvay Wegierski, Director What's in a name - Trade marks and Brooklyn Beckham Brooklyn Beckham, son to British born [...]
Not Every Employee Is a Whistleblower (And Not Every Disciplinary Hearing Is Up for Debate)
by Bradley Workman-Davies - Director The Labour Court’s judgment in Modika v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa and another [...]
Deadlines Are Not Suggestions (And Finality Still Matters)
by Bradley Workman-Davies - Director The Labour Appeal Court’s decision in NUMSA obo Members v Macsteel Service Centres South Africa [...]
Redundancy and the Duty to Consult: Lessons from Tsogo Sun Casinos v SACCAWU
by Jacques van Wyk - Director and Mike Searle - Candidate Attorney Retrenchment is often described as a ‘no-fault’ dismissal, [...]
Your Workforce Is Not Your Property
by Bradley Workman-Davies - Director The Labour Court’s judgment in Man Mining Technical Services (Pty) Ltd v Eagle Creek Investments [...]
The Fired and the Furious — and Still Restrained
by Bradley Workman-Davies - Director The Labour Appeal Court’s decision in Backsports (Pty) Ltd v Motlhanke and another is a [...]
