Inside this issue...

- Thank you for your say

Dear reader,

I’d like to say thank you to all the readers who took the time to write in and give me their opinion on the last bulletin’s subject regarding labour brokers and their possible ban. I have to say, opinion was mixed regarding support for and against the proposal. Here’s what some of you had to say...

Thank you for your say

“I work for a Labour Broker and don’t agree with the Minister. We’re a reputable Temporary Employment Service Provider who complies with all legislation. Our clients require we comply with the ‘Irca Diamond Rating’ system and we are ISO9001:2000 certified. The problem is the "fly by night" brokers who want to make a quick buck and give the industry a bad name. Clients should ensure the brokers they use are registered and comply before making use of them.” 

-    Loraine Potgieter

“Unfortunately the labour brokers’ position in the market is misused by unscrupulous employers to create a buffer between them and the Labour Relations Act. The main reason for this is greed, the savings in the short-term, and the quick buck for the broker versus the well-established with implemented contracts and codes.

We do, however, have good labour brokers who communicate with their employees, who plan ahead and make sure that near-permanent employment with assistance to find new contracts is constantly an option. They work towards job creation rather than the quick buck.
For these reasons I’d say the statement by the minister is a bit too boldly put, speaking out on an issue that was not properly investigated with the correct facts on the table.”

-    George Visser

Onto other health and safety issues: Vic Menhard wrote in and asked us a question regarding the use of company vehicles...

Are we liable for employees hitching unauthorised lifts on a company vehicle?

Question
One of our employees has the duty of taking a company vehicle home after working hours. This vehicle is used by a small night-shift group to come to work and return home after hours. It is then returned to the day-staff member who then comes to work as normal.

1. Is the person who takes the vehicle home considered “on duty” while going home and coming to work?
2. We have discovered that a number of other staff members are hitching a ride home on the vehicle (management has neither authorised nor forbidden this practice). If one of the staff members hurts or injures himself while getting in or out of the vehicle, could we be held responsible?

The vehicle is a one tonne bakkie with a canopy.

Answer
The person taking the vehicle home isn’t on duty (i.e. paid overtime), but will be covered by the COID compensation should there be an accident, as you’ve instructed him to take the vehicle home.

With regards to the persons hitching a ride, you will have difficulty convincing the COID commissioner or insurer that it’s not a work-related incident and that you aren’t responsible as you’ve made the vehicle available to the night and day shift and the control as to who may or may not travel on the vehicle isn’t clear. The answer is yes: you’ll probably be held responsible.

I’ve given up all meat except fish for lent. I predict when you next hear from me, I’ll have made a bit of a pig of myself on Easter Sunday, and my waistband will still be straining!

Have a good long weekend,

Nadia Pisanti