Professionalism is Key
Professionalism is defined as a person’s conduct at work. It refers to the level of competence or excellence that is expected of a professional. One should never apologise for having high standards and rather provide the level of expectation. It is the employer’s duty to ensure good performance by all his/her employees, so their company will be viewed as professional. Employees should be made aware of the type of environment and conduct the employer desires and they should follow the rules set by the employer. Professionalism is not industry-specific Regardless of the industry in which you work, all jobs have one thing in common: in order to be respected and to advance in your career, you need to display professionalism. On a construction site, a professional worker will work hard and manage their time effectively, while a professional employee in a customer service setting will be polite in their interactions with clients and have a neat appearance. In an office setting, a professional employee will work productively with others and strive for a high standard and constant improvement. Professionalism may look slightly different in different work environments, but the key elements are more or less the same. Businesses should allocate the appropriate amount of funds to ensure professionalism in their company; policies and procedures should clearly outline what is expected of employees when it comes to professionalism, and training sessions should be offered to those entering the company or to those struggling to conduct themselves in a professional manner. Developing professionalism in the workplace Business professionals should actively develop their problem-solving skills, adopting analytic tools that, coupled with intuition, will help them to make sound and effective decisions. Business professionals must be realistic problem solvers. To solve problems is a skill, and like any skill, your abilities will improve with practice. As one develops decision-making abilities in less important situations, it will become easier to handle more complex ones because you have learned from your previous experiences. As business professionals develop and mature in their experience and ability, they should develop a sense of confidence and competence. Like every other part of professionalism, confidence should be an intentional part of the professional core, requiring both practise and reflection. Opportunities to practise and reflect on professionalism should be created by employers in order to ensure that their staff’s conduct is of the desired standard. This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)
What amendments have been made to High Court rules?
Rule 32 Rule 32(1) determines the following: “The Plaintiff may, after the Defendant has delivered a plea, apply to court for summary judgment on each of such claims in the summons as is only: On a liquid document; For a liquidated amount in money; For delivery of specified movable property; For ejectment.” Previously, an application for summary judgment had to be brought within 15 days after the notice of intention to defend was delivered, now it is after the plea was delivered. The effect of this amendment is that a trial will be run on papers by way of the application procedure. The benefit of the new rule is that by allowing for the plea to be filed, summary judgment applications where the Defendant has a bona fide defence will be avoided, because the Defendant is now given the opportunity to file his plea before the Plaintiff can apply for summary judgment. Previously, if the Defendant had a bona fide defence, it would have been set out in the opposing affidavit to the summary judgment application, which would later be duplicated in the Plea if the summary judgment application was not successful. Rule 32(2)(b) determines the following: “The Plaintiff shall in the affidavit referred to in sub-rule 2(a) verify the cause of action and the amount, and identify any point of law relied upon and the facts upon which the Plaintiff’s claim is based, and explain briefly why the defence as pleaded does not raise any issue for trial.” Previously the rule said that you had to state that there is no bona fide defence to the action and that the Plaintiff merely delivered a notice of intention to defend for the purpose of delaying the proceedings. Because the plea will now be delivered by the time the Plaintiff applies for summary judgment, the Plaintiff will be able to specifically attack the defence contained in the plea. Previously, the Plaintiff would not have had this information when applying for summary judgment. Rule 32(3)(a) now determines: “The Defendant may give security to the Plaintiff to the satisfaction of the court for any judgment including costs”. Previously security was given to the registrar. Rule 32(3)(b) now determines that the Defendant must satisfy the court by an affidavit which shall be delivered five days before the day on which the application is to be heard. Previously the affidavit had to be delivered before noon on the court day but one preceding the day on which application is to be heard. This is also a positive change, as it will give the judge hearing the matter a chance to properly peruse the papers and go to court prepared on the day of the hearing of the summary judgment application. It will also give the Plaintiff’s attorney the opportunity to see well in advance on what basis the Defendant is opposing the summary judgment application. Rule 36 Rule 36(2)(a) determines that any party requiring another party to submit to a medical examination shall deliver a notice to such other party. Previously the rule only provided for “such examination”, now it is specifically stating “medical examination”. Rule 36(8) now determines that any party causing an examination to be made in terms of sub-rules 1 and 6 shall: ) cause the person making the examination to give a full report in writing, within two months of the date of the examination or within such other period as may be directed by a judge in terms of rule 37(8) or in terms of rule 37(A)b; and ) within five days after receipt of such report inform all other parties in writing of the existence of the report and upon request immediately furnish any other party with a complete copy thereof. Previously no timeline was set out for the person conducting the examination to give a report and the party obtaining the report did not have to disclose the report to the other party unless requested to do so. Now it is compulsory to disclose the report within five days of receiving it. This is a positive change in the sense that it will enable opposing parties to see on what the Plaintiff bases the claim long before the matter goes to trial, which will, in turn, enable the opposing party to respond properly to the Plaintiff’s case, or to settle the matter if the Defendant realises that it would not be worthwhile to keep defending the matter. Rule 36(9)(a) now reads as follows: “Where the Plaintiff intends to call an expert, the Plaintiff shall not more than 30 days after the close of pleadings, or where the defendant intends to call the expert, the defendant shall not more than 60 days after the close of pleadings, have delivered notice of intention to call such expert”. Rule 36(9)(b) now reads as follows: “In the case of the Plaintiff not more than 90 days after the close of pleadings and in the case of the Defendant not more than 120 days after the close of pleadings, such Plaintiff or Defendant shall have delivered a summary of the expert’s opinion and the reasons therefor, provided that the notice and summary shall be delivered before a first case summary management conference held in terms of rule 37A”. Previously the Plaintiff had to disclose fifteen days before the hearing that the Plaintiff intended to call an expert witness. The Plaintiff had to deliver not less than ten days before trial a summary of the expert’s opinion. The benefit of this new approach is that parties are forced to see to it that their case is in order and the opposing party can see what case they have to meet long before the case goes to trial, which will avoid unnecessary delays close to trial, and will hopefully have the effect that more cases will be settled before trial, as parties are in a better position to examine whether it will be worthwhile going ahead with the trial, given the evidence disclosed by
Sentencing of convicted persons: is it inconsistent?
Members of the public are often confused as to how judges or magistrates decide on an appropriate sentence for a convicted person. One often thinks that a sentence in a specific case is not harsh enough when compared to similar cases and that the courts are not consistent when it comes to imposing sentences. This article will briefly set out the factors which courts must consider during sentencing proceedings in order to show that different sentences can be appropriate in different circumstances. The Appellate Division has stated in S v Rabie that the “punishment should fit the criminal as well as the crime, be fair to society and be blended with a measure of mercy according to the circumstances”. This statement makes it clear that the sentencing procedure is not only an objective exercise where one must purely look at the crime which was committed and then impose a sentence accordingly but rather that the judicial officer imposing the sentence must also take into consideration other factors, such as the person who committed the crime. The Supreme Court of Appeal has accordingly established a triad of considerations which must be taken into account when deciding on an appropriate sentence in the seminal case of S v Zinn. These considerations are: the personal circumstances of the person convicted of the crimes; the nature of the crimes including the gravity and extent thereof; and the interests of the community. These considerations must be taken into account and balanced against each other in order to determine what sentence will be just and fair. The Appellate Division has, in an attempt to explain the relationship between these considerations, stated the following: “A judicial officer should not approach punishment in a spirit of anger because, being human, that will make it difficult for him to achieve that delicate balance between the crime, the criminal and the interests of society which his task and the objects of punishment demand of him. Nor should he strive after severity, nor, on the other hand, surrender to misplaced pity. While not flinching from firmness where firmness is called for, he should approach his task with a humane and compassionate understanding of human frailties and the pressures of society which contribute to criminality. It is in the context of this attitude of mind that I see mercy as an element in the determination of the appropriate punishment in the light of all the circumstances of the particular case.” The elements of humaneness and mercifulness as mentioned in the above quotation are relevant when considering the personal circumstances of a convicted person. Here a court might, for example, decide not to impose a sentence of imprisonment on a convicted person who has minor children but rather another form of punishment such as a fine or a suspended sentence. Another example is where a court might decide to impose a lesser sentence after a convicted person has shown true remorse and has taken positive steps to right the wrong committed by him or her. However, a court must also consider the punitive objectives of sentencing. The Western Cape High Court has stated in this regard in the case of S v Luke that “sentencing must also be directed at addressing the traditional purposes of punishment. Those are deterrence, prevention, retribution and rehabilitation of the offender”. It is clear from the above discussion that a judicial officer must take a myriad of competing factors into account when deciding which sentence to impose on a convicted person. This is not an easy task and the subsequent sentence will inevitably leave some people disappointed. It is, furthermore, due to the difficulty of the task, not impossible that a judicial officer might impose a sentence on a convicted person which is not just and fair. This is why both the convicted person as well as the National Prosecuting Authority may take the sentence on appeal if either party feels that it is not fair. Reference List: S v Zinn 1969 (2) SA 537 (A) S v Rabie 1975 (4) SA 855 (AD) S v Luke and Others (SS16/10) [2012] ZAWCHC 9 (16 February 2012) This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)
Diversity in the workplace
Workplace diversity refers to the differences between individuals in an organisation and it encompasses race, gender, ethnic groups, age, religions, sexual orientation etc. There are many benefits to having a diverse workplace, for example, organisations that want to recruit diverse candidates and establish a diverse workplace, have a much larger pool of candidates to choose from. This can lead to finding more qualified candidates and it can also cut the time it takes to fill a position in half. Other benefits include: Employees from diverse backgrounds can come up with creative new ideas and perspectives by working together A diverse workplace will help organisations better understand target demographics Increased customer satisfaction by improving how employees interact with diverse clients Managing diversity in the workplace presents a set of unique challenges, however, these challenges can be mitigated if the organisation encourages a diversity-friendly environment by promoting tolerance and open communication. Here are some additional tips to managing diversity in the workplace effectively: Communication must be a priority In order to manage a diverse workplace, organisations must ensure that they are communicating with their employees. Policies, safety rules and other important information can be translated and distributed amongst employees ensuring that every employee understands. Every employee should be seen as an individual Every employee is an individual and should not be assumed to be a certain way just because of their background. Employees should be encouraged to work in diverse groups By working together in diverse teams, employees will get to know each other and value one another individuality. This way, preconceived notions and cultural misunderstandings can be avoided. This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)