Is depression a ground for discrimination?
In a matter of Legal Aid South Africa v Jansen, the Labour Appeal Court had to decide whether the Employer’s decision to dismiss Mr Jansen, who was struggling with depression and continued being absent from work a result thereof, was fair. Mr Jansen argued that his behaviour was a result of his deteriorated mental health. Mr Jansen commenced his employment with Legal Aid South Africa during 2007. In 2010 he was diagnosed and treated for depression. Over the following years, Mr Jansen was absent from work on numerous occasions, which he attributed to his depression. Mr Jansen would take unauthorised leave and eventually he received a final written warning for it. As his condition deteriorated, he continued to be absent from work without following his employer’s leave policy. He was eventually charged with being absent for 17 days, breaching his employer’s policy, showing insolence towards a superior, and insubordination by refusing to fulfil his duties. Mr Jansen pleaded guilty to the offences. However, he justified his actions on the basis of his deteriorated mental health. Legal Aid South Africa, however, proceeded to dismiss him. Mr Jansen proceeded to challenge the fairness of the dismissal on two grounds. Firstly, he argued that it was unfair in that he was discriminated against on the grounds of disability (in terms of section 187(1)(f) of the Labour Relations Act,66 of 1995) and argued it to be an unfair discrimination case in terms of the Employment Equity Act, 55 of 1998. The Labour Court (LC) found that Mr Jansen had proven a prima facie case and held that he was unfairly discriminated against after hearing the evidence of his clinical psychologist, who testified and explained his mental condition. Legal Aid South Africa appealed the decision to the Labour Appeal Court (LAC). The LAC took into consideration that even though Mr Jansen had admitted to the transgressions, he, nevertheless, maintained that his behaviour was a direct result of the depression. The depression, he argued, obscured his ability to conduct himself in such a manner where he could appreciate the wrongfulness of his behaviour, which consequently effected his self-control. The LAC confirmed that incapacitating depression is a form of illness that places a duty on the employer to implement the procedures set out in items 10 and 11 of the Code of Good Practice. The LAC held that dismissal for reasons of misconduct would be inappropriate and substantively unfair in the event that it is established that an employee who, on account of their depression, their state of mind (cognitive ability), as well as their will (conative ability), has been impacted to the extent that they are unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of their actions. Instead, the employer ought to approach the issue in terms of incapacity or an operational requirements perspective. Conversely, it can also be a mitigating factor if an employee’s depression does not impede on their cognitive and conative abilities. Their depression may, nevertheless, diminish their culpability. According to the LAC, the onus lies with an employee to prove the claim that their depression impacted their conative ability. Regarding the automatic unfair dismissal claim, the LAC held that, “for an employee to succeed in an automatically unfair dismissal claim based on depression, the question is different. Here the inquiry is not confined to whether the employee was depressed and if his depression impacted on [sic] his cognitive and conative capacity or diminished his blameworthiness. Rather, it is directed at a narrower determination of whether the reason for his dismissal was his depression and if he was subjected to differential treatment on that basis. Here too, the employee bears the evidentiary burden to establish a credible possibility (approaching a probability) that the reason for dismissal was differential treatment on account of his being depressed, and not because he misconducted himself.” Even though Mr Jansen suffered from depression, he had failed to construct a plausible case to prove that his acts of misconduct were caused by his state of depression. The clinical psychologist who treated Mr Jansen could also not place any evidence before the court that his depression caused the acts of misconduct. Accordingly, The LAC upheld the appeal, and the decision of the LC was set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the application. Therefore, based on the approach of the LAC, if it is established that an employee who, on account of their depression, their state of mind (cognitive ability), as well as their will (conative ability), has been impacted to the extent that they are unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of their actions, then dismissal for reasons of misconduct would be inappropriate and substantively unfair. Depression can also serve as a mitigating factor in certain circumstances. The onus, however, to prove the direct link between the illness and the misconduct, is on the employee. Reference List: Legal Aid South Africa v Jansen (CA3/2019) [2020] ZALAC 37; (2020) 41 ILJ 2580 (LAC) Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 Employment Equity Act, 55 of 1998 South African Labour Law Reports 2021, 37th Annual Seminar. Author: B van Zyl. 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)
Don’t cause unnecessary difficulty with your disciplinary action
Many employers often decide to leave disciplinary matters for a later date and/or overlook matters of concern to avoid conflict. However, when handled well, conflict can have a positive impact on an employee’s performance and behaviour after they have made an error. Did this ever happen to you as a teenager? You’re sitting in the backseat of the car after being picked up from school and one of your parents says something you disapprove of, and before you know it you’ve given them lip and voiced your unwanted opinion. The next words you hear are the most dreadful words any teen can hear – “Just wait until your mom/dad gets home”. Those few words are enough to strike fear into the most entitled of young’uns, and it makes the rest of the day unbearable. While your parenting style is very much a matter of opinion (barring obvious wrongs), the same style of discipline in the workplace leaves much to be desired and can, in fact, lead to unwanted conflict and legal repercussions down the line. Delays in the process have the following results: Employees are anxious When you delay discipline and the relevant employee is aware of their error, it often leads to anxiety and unproductivity. This happens because the employee can become so fixated on the problem to be discussed and be mentally consumed by constructing a defence. Evidence is lost When you delay discipline, you allow the evidence for the error on the part of the employee to get away. Reconstructing the facts at a much later point often leads to misrepresented, exaggerated, or understated claims. Taking decisive disciplinary action and detailing events and relevant documents is easier when it is done sooner. It devalues legitimate issues When you don’t take decisive disciplinary action soon enough, it makes it appear as though the error of the employee is less serious than it may be. It also sets an undesirable precedent and could lead to resentment for the employee who has made the error from their peers. It often comes across as (and can be construed as) unfair When discipline is delayed (especially with the addition of the factors mentioned above), the eventual discipline can feel like a personal, discriminatory action. It raises the legitimate question of why action wasn’t taken sooner. Quick, decisive action, on the other hand, has the following results: Course correction When discipline is taken quickly and decisively, it leaves the employee in a position to correct their action going forward and encourages unity in the workplace. Good disciplinary procedures will set out a clear description of what went wrong with a clear action plan to improve the employee’s behaviour or performance going forward. Fair hearings with relevant evidence When action is taken without delay, it allows everyone to gather the most relevant available information. Everyone can share their experiences and present their best case before a plan of action is made. The employee is also given a fair opportunity to appeal the decision made with the case they present. Better case for escalation if the issue persists Often, bad behaviour or poor performance persists if action isn’t taken timeously. It then makes it much more difficult to escalate your approach if no formal disciplinary action for the first instance of misconduct has taken place. Not only is decisive action good for correcting the behaviour, but it also ensures that there are no delays to escalation if the situation does not improve. More respect for management Good managers lead well. If you set a clear example every time of how discipline is approached in the workplace, you only stand to earn respect. Too many managers are seen as weak managers for their inability to take action when conflict arises. Don’t let poor behaviour or performance slip and cause you unnecessary problems down the road. Get in touch with your Labour Law adviser to ensure that the policies and procedures that you have in place are both secure and relevant and make your workplace an environment that is conducive to fast and effective conflict resolution. 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)
New Rights for Fathers, Adoptive Parents and Commissioning Parents
In a welcoming and long-awaited move, President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the Amendment of the Labour Law Act into law on 28 November 2018, giving parents, particularly fathers of newborn children, adoptive parents and commissioning parents, the right to ten consecutive days parental leave. This new law took effect on 1 January 2020. This new law is seen as a progressive move towards recognising biological fathers, same sex parents, transgender parents, adoptive parents and even surrogates. It further acknowledges the fact that the gap between one or two parents being employed in a household is getting narrower and narrower. The entitlement to parental leave also fosters family bonding between the parents and a child, which is of utmost importance. This amendment to the Basic Employment Condition Act, 1997 is the insertion of clauses 25A, 25B and 25C, set out below: Parental Leave 25A. (1) An employee, who is a parent of a child, is entitled to at least ten consecutive days parental leave. (2) An employee may commence parental leave on- (a) the day that the employee’s child is born; or (b) the date— (i) that the adoption order is granted; or (ii) that a child is placed in the care of a prospective adoptive parent by a competent court, pending the finalisation of a 30-day-adoption order in respect of that child, whichever date occurs first. (3) An employee must notify an employer in writing, unless the employee is unable to do so, of the date on which the employee intends to— (a) commence parental leave; and (b) return to work after parental leave. (4) Notification in terms of subsection (3) must be given— (a) at least one month before the— (i) employee’s child is expected to be born; or (ii) date referred to in subsection 2(b); or (b) if it is not reasonably practicable to do so, as soon as is reasonably practicable. (5) The payment of commissioning parental benefits will be determined by the Minister, subject to the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 2001 (Act No. 63 of 2001). Adoption Leave 25B. (1) An employee, who is an adoptive parent of a child who is below the age of two, is subject to subsection (6), entitled to— (a) adoption leave of at least ten weeks consecutively; or (b) the parental leave referred to in section 25A. (2) An employee may commence adoption leave on the date— (a) that the adoption order is granted; or (b) that a child is placed in the care of a prospective adoptive parent by a competent court, pending the finalisation of an adoption order in respect of that child, whichever date occurs first. (3) An employee must notify an employer in writing, unless the employee is unable to do so, of the date on which the employee intends to— (a) commence adoption leave; and (b) return to work after adoption leave. (4) Notification in terms of subsection (3) must be given— (a) at least one month before the date referred to in subsection (2); or (b) if it is not reasonably practicable to do so, as soon as is reasonably practicable. (5) The payment of parental benefits will be determined by the Minister, subject to the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 2001 (Act No. 63 of 2001). (6) If an adoption order is made in respect of two adoptive parents, one of the adoptive parents may apply for adoption leave and the other adoptive parent may apply for the parental leave referred to in section 25A: Provided that the selection of choice must be exercised at the option of the two adoptive parents. (7) If a competent court orders that a child is placed in the care of two prospective adoptive parents, pending the finalisation of an adoption order in respect of that child, one of the prospective adoptive parents may apply for adoption leave and the other prospective adoptive parent may apply for the parental leave referred to in section 25A: Provided that the selection of choice must be exercised at the option of the two prospective adoptive parents. Commissioning parental leave 25C. (1) An employee, who is a commissioning parent in a surrogate motherhood agreement is, subject to subsection (6), entitled to— (a) commissioning parental leave of at least ten weeks consecutively; or (b) the parental leave referred to in section 25A. (2) An employee may commence commissioning parental leave on the date a child is born as a result of a surrogate motherhood agreement. (3) An employee must notify an employer in writing, unless the employee is unable to do so, of the date on which the employee intends to— (a) commence commissioning parental leave; and (b) return to work after commissioning parental leave. (4) Notification in terms of subsection (3) must be given— (a) at least one month before a child is expected to be born as a result of a surrogate motherhood agreement; or (b) if it is not reasonably practicable to do so, as soon as is reasonably practicable. (5) The payment of commissioning parental benefits will be determined by the Minister, subject to the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 2001 (Act No. 63 of 2001). (6) If a surrogate motherhood agreement has two commissioning parents, one of the commissioning parents may apply for commissioning parental leave and the other commissioning parent may apply for the parental leave referred to in section 25A: Provided that the selection of choice must be exercised at the option of the two commissioning parents. This landmark legislation does not apply to mothers who give birth as they are entitled to maternity leave, which is four months maternity leave, in terms of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act. Maternity leave is paid out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF). Parental leave, adoption leave, and commissioning leave will also be paid out of UIF. Employees will be given a partial pay out of up to 66% of their salary from the UIF. We recommend that employers amend the employment contracts
Medical and psychological testing: Is passing a requirement?
As a point of departure: according to section 7 and 8 of the Employment Equity Act, 55 of 1998 (“the Act”), employers are prohibited from performing medical- and psychological testing, or any other similar assessments, on employees. Employees, though, are often required to pass medical or psychological testing before they are considered for a certain vacancy. Such tests will only be lawful when legislation requires or permits the testing or when the employer can justify the reason for the testing. According to section 7 of the Act, the employer may justify the prerequisite of a medical test in light of medical tests, employment conditions, social policy, the fair distribution of employee benefits or the inherent requirements of the specific job. While psychological testing or any other similar assessment may only occur when the results thereof have been scientifically shown to be valid and reliable, when such testing can be fairly applied to all employees, and lastly, that such tests will not bias any employee or group. Furthermore, section 9 of the Act states that “employee” includes an applicant. Therefore, the aforesaid provisions are applicable to both employees that are currently employed by an employer and the applicants who are currently seeking employment. So, what happens when the employer does not make it clear why the medical, psychological or any other similar assessment is required? In the case of EWN v Pharmaco Distribution (Pty) Ltd (2016) 377 ILJ 449 (LC), the Labour Court was given the task of deciding whether a clause, in the employment contract of an employee suffering from bipolar disorder, which gives the employer the discretion of having the employee undergo medical testing whenever the employer deemed it necessary, was lawful. A clause in the employee’s contract provided: ‘The employee will, whenever the company deems necessary, undergo a specialist medical examination at the expense of the company, by a medical practitioner nominated and appointed by the company. The employee gives his/her irrevocable consent to any such medical practitioner making the results and record of any medical examination available to the company and to discuss same with such medical practitioner. The above shall include and apply to psychological evaluations.’ The employee, however, refused to undergo the said testing and one of the main issues which the Labour Court had to decide on was whether the provision was enforceable; and whether her dismissal for failing to submit to a medical examination was automatically unfair in terms of s187(1)(f) of the Labour Relations Act (LRA) 66 of 1995. The court held that the section provides no exception based on the consent of the employee in an employment contract and that medical testing will only be permitted in the circumstances set out in section 7 or 8 of the Act, which did not find application in this case. The court also found that the instruction to undergo psychiatric testing on account of the employee’s bipolar condition amounted to unfair discrimination in terms of section 6 of the Act. The dismissal of the employee for refusing to undergo a psychiatric evaluation to determine her fitness to work was found to be an automatically unfair dismissal in terms of s187(1)(f) of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995. Employers are, however, still able to use arguments such as “employment conditions” or “inherent requirements of a job”, to “cover up” certain tests. This will result in applicants being rejected or the results of such tests being used as grounds for dismissal. To make sure whether such conditions or requirements will justify the rejection or dismissal, it is important to look at the nature of the specific job in question, the general practice and the history of the employer’s employment conditions and inherent requirements of the job to evaluate whether the decision was fair. Employers are only allowed in limited circumstances to require that employees undergo medical- and psychological testing or any other similar assessments. Should there be a clause in the employment agreement which provides for such testing, which was signed by the employee, it does not necessarily mean that such testing will be lawful. It is important to note whether such a clause is in line with the Act. Reference List: Employment Equity Act, 55 of 1998. EWN v Pharmaco Distribution (Pty) Ltd (2016) 377 ILJ 449 (LC). Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995. 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)
Domestic workers: Now able to claim for injuries on duty
For a long time, the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, better known as COIDA, has provided compensation to employees who were injured on duty or contracted diseases or illnesses caused by the workplace. However, the Act explicitly excluded certain employees from its scope of operation, amongst others, domestic workers in private households. Dependents of deceased domestic workers, who died while on duty, were left without a leg to stand on in terms of compensation from the Compensation Fund. Fortunately, this has now changed. The Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (“the Act”) aims to provide compensation for disablement caused by occupational injuries or diseases sustained or contracted by employees in the course of their employment. It also aims to provide compensation for death resulting from such injuries or diseases. However, this was not the case for select groups that were specifically excluded in terms of the Act. Including domestic workers working in private households. Those individuals that were specifically excluded from claiming compensation in terms of the Act were: A person performing military service or undergoing such training and is not a member of the Permanent Force of the South African Defence Force (“SADF”); A member of the Permanent Force of the SADF while on service in the defence of the Republic; A member of the South African Police Force (“SAPF”) on service in the defence of the Republic; A person who is contracted for the carrying out of work who then engages other persons to perform such work; and A domestic employee employed as such in a private household. Practically, this meant that if a domestic worker employed in a private household, sustained an injury or died on duty, he/she or his/her dependents could not claim compensation in terms of the Act. This also meant that employers who employed such domestic workers had no obligation to contribute to the Compensation Fund. The above-mentioned will soon be drastically changed as the High Court in Pretoria announced that domestic workers are now eligible to claim from the Compensation Fund if they were injured or contracted a disease at their place of work. The same applies should a domestic worker die while on duty; – the family of the domestic worker would then be allowed to claim. The decision in the Pretoria High Court arose from a case in which a domestic worker drowned in her employer’s swimming pool during the course of her duties. When her dependent daughter approached the Department of Labour, she was informed that she was not allowed to claim in terms of the Act, as domestic workers were not included in the definition of an “employee”. This newly found right of domestic workers to claim from the Compensation Fund will now see domestic workers and their dependents enjoying the full protection the Act has to offer. Employers will now have to pay into the Compensation Fund once a month and will not be allowed to deduct money from the workers’ wages for this. There are certain instances where the Compensation Fund will not provide payment: No payment will be made for claims which are made more than 12 months after the accident or death, or more than 12 months after the disease is diagnosed; No payment is made if the workers’ own misconduct caused the accident unless the worker was seriously disabled or died from the accident; and There may be no payment if the worker unreasonably refuses to have medical treatment, for as long as the worker refuses. Compensation is paid to employees who get injured at work or for diseases caused by work. There are four main types of compensation payments. These are: Temporary disability (the worker eventually recovers from the injury or illness); Permanent disability (the worker never fully recovers); Death; and Medical expenses. Compensation is calculated as a percentage (%) of the wage the worker was earning at the time of the disease or injury’s diagnosis. If the employee is unemployed by the time a disease is diagnosed, the wage they would have been earning must be calculated. The Fund does not pay for pain and suffering, only for the loss of movement or use of the body. The Act came under scrutiny towards the end of 2018 and amendments were proposed to provide more inclusive legislation. The decision in the Pretoria High Court has fast-tracked the amendments which will undoubtedly make huge strides for domestic workers in private households. Reference List: Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases 130 of 1993; The South African Labour Guide The Business Insider, 24 May 2019. 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)
Occupational health and safety in the workplace
What does occupational health and safety (OHS) refer to? OHS is a discipline that involves many different specialised fields. OHS promotes and maintains the highest degree of physical, mental and social well-being of workers in all occupations. It aims to protect workers from health risks, to prevent adverse effects on the health of workers caused by their working conditions and to place and maintain workers in an occupational environment adapted to physical and mental needs. In other words, OHS encompasses the social, mental and physical well-being of workers. Why is OHS in the workplace important? Most workers spend at least eight hours a day in the workplace, thus it plays a central role in people’s lives. Therefore, workplaces should be both safe and healthy, however, for many workers, this is not always the case. Workers all over the world are faced with many health hazards on a daily basis, such as dust, gases, noise, extreme temperatures etc. It’s unfortunate that some employers assume little to no responsibility for the protection of their workers’ health and safety. Oftentimes, employers are not even aware that they have a moral and often legal responsibility to protect their workers. This results in many work-related accidents and diseases occurring in the workplace all over the world. Additionally, health and safety regulations in the workplace are vital to the well-being of both the employees and employers. There are many hazards present in the workplace today, and it is the employer’s job to keep their employees safe when they are in the workplace. Below are some key points that further indicate the importance of OHS in the workplace: The prevention of illness and injury Employee illnesses and injuries are greatly reduced when health and safety procedures are implemented in the workplace. These procedures that are put into place can help employees and employers to understand what hazards are present in the workplace. OHS training is essential as it will educate employees on the proper workplace procedures that are necessary to prevent possible injuries and illnesses. Health and safety hazards are reduced Any workplace can pose potential hazards for employees and employers. There are certain things in the workplace that can lead to injuries, for example, certain equipment and chemicals. Health hazards can include contamination of food as well as an outbreak of an infectious disease. If you work with chemicals or gases, there is always the risk of dangerous exposure for employees and employers. Therefore, it is very important to have specific emergency and evacuation plans in place in the event of such exposure. Serious consequences can be avoided If the workplace is deemed unsafe for employees, employers could face hefty fines or temporary closure of their business. If employers do not follow the necessary OHS procedures, it can have a negative impact on their business as they could lose money, employees, clients etc. These negative impacts on your business can be entirely avoided if you realise the importance of having a health and safety programme implemented in your workplace that will promote and maintain employees’ health and well-being, ensuring that your business can continue to thrive. 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)
How to hire the right person for the job
Hiring managers all know how crucial it is to hire the right candidate. Hiring the wrong people to join your workplace could possibly make or break your business. Before you can begin your search for the perfect candidate to join your team, you need to establish what type of person the perfect candidate would ideally be, the specifics of the job description, and the salary range. Where is the best place to start searching for the ideal candidate? Ideally, one should start searching within your business network. The reason being, most working professionals have friends or former colleagues who are in the process of searching for a job. Always remember, networking is key! Once you have scheduled an interview with a potential candidate, follow the tips below on how to ensure that you not only hire the right person for the job but also the right person for your business. Pre-screen the potential candidates A potential candidate could look good on paper; however, a pre-screening will identify whether their qualifications are a proper fit for the position in question. Ensure that all references and backgrounds are valid This is a very important step before actually hiring an employee. By doing these checks, you can verify whether the potential candidate possesses the skills and qualifications that he/she has mentioned in their CV. Ensure that your interviewing skills are as good as it can possibly be Preparation is essential before conducting an interview with a potential candidate. If there ever was a situation where you simply cannot “wing it”, this is it. Stay away from the standard interview questions and determine what type of information is needed to successfully identify whether the potential candidate will be a right fit and be able to do the job at hand efficiently. Make use of a comprehensive evaluation form When interviewing more than one candidate, it is important to make use of an evaluation form, as one can easily confuse candidates, especially if more than one interview has been conducted on the same day. This form can be used to summarise your impressions, and any other important information mentioned during the interview. This will ensure that you can compare the candidates and choose the ideal fit for the position and your company. Don’t get stuck on the CV It’s very important to look beyond the potential candidate’s CV. Get to know the potential candidate, this will be a clear indicator of whether he/she will be a good fit for your business. Ask open-ended questions One way of getting to know the potential candidate a little better is by asking open-ended questions that implore a longer answer. 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)
Essential components of a performance management system
Performance management refers to the process by which managers and employees work together to plan, monitor and review an employee’s performance. A performance review is used to discuss an employee’s performance. It is also an opportunity to get to know the employee better and to discuss their feelings about the job. The aim of this review is to determine what the employee is doing right and what they are doing wrong. There are certain components to a performance management system which need to be incorporated into a company in order to ensure the effective management of employees: It must create a shared understanding of what is to be achieved Performance management should be used by managers and employees to create a shared understanding of what should be achieved, and also how it is to be achieved. Managers and supervisors must ensure that individuals and teams have a common understanding of how their jobs connect to the mission and goals of the business. Accountability for results must be clearly assigned and well-understood by everyone Management must clearly identify what it takes to determine success and make sure that all managers and employees understand what they are responsible for in achieving the company’s goals. Accountability is a key success factor for any company. Compensation, rewards, and recognition should link to performance measures A clear link between achieving a specified performance target and some form of meaningful compensation, reward or recognition should be used as a positive performance incentive. Managers and employees intuitively understand the importance of a performance measure when it is directly tied to financial remuneration or another form of meaningful reward or recognition. Employees must be trained on their performance Employees must be clearly briefed on their responsibilities and they should be trained in the areas where they are lacking. It might be that employees are capable of performing, but that they are not sure of what is expected of them, or they have not performed a certain task before and need guidance. Both managers and employees must monitor and track performance Both managers and employees need to monitor the employee’s situation in order to take action to keep performance and development on course or to change course if needed. Decisions about giving and receiving feedback and asking for training for improved performance relies on observing, tracking and recording performance information. To ensure the effective monitoring of performance, regular progress reviews should be conducted with employees where their performance is compared to their performance measures. 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)