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
POPIA face-off on Facebook: High Court says social media post is unlawful, orders interdict
In the recent High Court decision of Munetsi v Madhuyu, the applicant sought a court order against the respondents to [...]
SAFM Market Update: Cross Trainer Enters Business Rescue
Dr. Eric Levenstein, Director and Head of our Insolvency & Business Rescue practice area, had a discussion with Jimmy [...]
When Three Legal Planets Align… WhatsApp Must Pay a $220 000 000.00 Fine
The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission ("Commission"), being the foremost agency in Nigeria, responsible for the promotion, protection, and [...]
Waive Goodbye to Uncertainty: Phoenix Salt Industries (Pty) Ltd v The Lubavitch Foundation of Southern Africa
and Laeeqah Kassiem, Candidate Attorney This article discusses the judgement of Phoenix Salt Industries (Pty) Ltd v The Lubavitch Foundation [...]
Mr. Pty Ltd, You Have a Right to Privacy!
When thinking about the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 ("POPIA") individuals often, mistakenly so, think about the [...]
Section 54 – Still a Bar to the Commencement of Mining Activity?
On 5 December 2018, Werksmans published an article on the Constitutional Court Judgment: CCT 265/17 Maledu v Itereleng Bakgatla Mineral [...]