Akuqashelwe imibandela yokuhlomula ngenxa yokudilizwa
UKUDILIZWA emsebenzini kungukuxoshwa ngaphandle kwephutha lomqashwa nomqashi, kodwa kungenxa yesimo somnotho webhizinisi.ISigaba soMthetho Wezobudlelwano Kwezokuqhashwa esinguNombolo 189 silawula inqubo nomgomo olandelwayo uma kudilizwa.Lo Mthetho eSigabeni 213 uchaza ukudilizwa ngokuthi kusukela ezidingweni zomqashi ezimayelana nomnotho, ubuchwepheshe, isimo somsebenzi kunye nezinye izidingo zomqashi.Ngumqashi okumele abuke isimo sebhizinisi lakhe nomnotho walo ukuthi kuyaphoqa yini ukuba adilize abasebenzi.Kumele makube ngesinye sezixazululo sezinkinga zebhizinisi ukuthi kudilizwe abasebenzi ukuze kunciphe izindleko zebhizinisi nalo futhi lisimame.
Ake sibheke imibandela yomhlomulo wokudilizwa. ISigaba 41 soMthetho Wemibandela Eyisisekelo Yokuqashwa (Basic Conditions of Employment Act), sinika ilungelo lomhlomulo kulowo odilizwayo.Lo mhlumulo uyimali elingana neyeviki elilodwa ngonyaka umunye ophelele osetshenzwe ngumqashwa. Kunemibandela nemibango eminingi emayelana nalo mhlomulo wokudilizwa. Umbandela obalulekile ngothi umqashwa owala ukuthatha omunye umsebenzi ukuze kugwemeke ukudilizwa kwakhe akanalungelo lokuthola umhlomulo wokudilizwa.
Lo msebenzi omunye kufanele kube ngawunikezwa noma ngohlelwe ngumqashi wakhe lowo odilizwayo. Imibango eminingi isukela kulowo mbandela. Maningi amacala amayelana nalolu daba lwemihlomulo nemibandela yokudilizwa. Sibheka lolu daba ngokuhlaziya izinqumo zamacala abalulekile.
Umbango wombandela wokuqala ngothi uma umqashwa enikwa noma ehlelelwa umsebenzi omunye emva kokudilizwa noma ukugwema ukudilizwa yena bese ewala, lokho kumphuca ilungelo lomhlomulo wemali yokudilizwa. Ecaleni eligqamile ngalo mbandela le-Irvin & Johnson Ltd v CCMA & Others [2006] 7 BLLR 613 (LAC) umqashi wanikezela ngebhizinisi lokupheka kwenye inkampani kwaba nombandela wokuthi leyo nkampani mayiqashe bonke abasebenzi abebenza lowo msebenzi wokupheka. Nembala lo mqashi omusha wabaqasha bonke abasebenzi ngombandela wenkontileka wonyaka.
Abasebenzi bawumukela lowo msebenzi kodwa base befuna ukuba umqashi omdala abakhokhele imali yomhlomulo wokudilizwa. Inkantolo yabachitha yachaza ukuthi iSigaba 41 soMthetho Wemibandela Eyisisekelo Yokuqashwa sinika izindlela ezintathu zokuhlomulisa abadiliziwe: yilapho umqashwa enqaba ngokungenasizathu omunye umsebenzi anikezwa wona, okulapho kufanele aphucwe ilungelo lokuhlomula. Okwesibili yilapho umqashwa enqaba ngesizathu esinomqondo lowomsebenzi awunikiwe, lapho-ke kufanele makakhokhelwe umhlomulo wokudilizwa.
Okwesithathu yilapho khona umqashwa emukela lowo omunye umsebenzi awunikiwe okuwukuthi akanagunya lokuhlomuliswa ngemali yokudilizwa.Kuyacaca ukuthi laba basebenzi babekhaliswa ukuthi sebeqashwe ngenkontileka yonyaka kuphela okuwukuthi yonke iminyaka abasebeyisebenzile kumqashi wabo wokuqala isiyobalahlekela uma sekuphela leyo nkontileka. Sibazwela impela, kodwa wakhuluma kanjalo umlomo ongathethimanga.
Ngokomthetho lo mhlomulo ungumholo weonto elilodwa ngonyaka ophelele osetshenziwe. Kodwa, lo mthetho njengoba sachaza ngaphambilini ulawula umbandela oyisisekelo kuphela; okungachazi ukuthi akuvunyelwe ukukhokha umhlomulo othe xaxa ngokuvumelana komqashi nomqashwa.KweleTelkom (Pty) Ltd v CCMA & Others [2004] 8 BLLR 844 (LC) neNkantolo yakugcizelela lokho yabe isinquma ukuthi lapho khona kunesivumelwana sokukhokha umhlomulo wokudilizwa othe xaxa ngaphezulu kwalona onqunywe ngumbandela oyisisekelo; iNkantolo noma inkundla yamacala inelungelo lokuphoqa ukuba kuhlonishwe leso sivumelwano.
Kwehlukile kodwa uma umqashi engazange amnikeze noma amhlelele omunye umsebenzi umqashwa odilizwayo. Lokho kwagqama ecaleni leFidelity Supercare Cleaning (Pty) Ltd v Busakwe N.O & Others [2010] 3 BLLR 260 (LC) lapho okwakuphele inkontileka yomqashi nekhasimende lakhe waphoqeka ukuba adilize abasebenzi.Umqashi wabanikeza abasebenzi izincwadi zesikhathi sokusebenza nezinye izimfanelo njengokomthetho. Akazange abahlelele noma abanikeze eminye imisebenzi. Umqashwa obeseqede iminyaka eli-17 walwela umhlomulo wakhe.
Kodwa umqashi wenqaba ngegunya lokhuthi wabe esethola omunye umsebenzi. Kuleli-ke kubukeka sengathi umqashi wayecasha ngesithupha kungafanele ngoba wayazi ukuthi umqashwa wazitholela yena omunye umsebenzi, akahlelelwangwa ngumqashi.Isimo sesivumelwano sokuqashwa noma uhlobo lwebhizinisi elingumqahi nakho kubanomthelela emhlomulweni wokudilizwa. Umqashwa owayesesebenzele abameli iminyaka eminingi, abameli abangabanikazi bebhizinisi belokhu banda beba baningi abanye beshiye kufike abanye ukuzojoyina lelo bhizinisi. Ngokomthetho lolu hlobo lwebhizinisi kuthiwa akuyona inkampani kodwa ngabahwebi abahlangene.
Lokhu kwadalela ukuthi uma esedilizwa lomqashwa esefuna ukukhokhelwa umhlomulo wokudilizwa weminyaka yonke ayeseyisebenzile, wehluleka. Leli yicala leBurman Katz Attorney v Brand NO & Others [2001] 2 BLLR 125 (LC) lapho khona iNkantolo yanquma ukuthi kulolu hlobo lomqashi okuyiminyaka yokusebenza isukela ngesikhathi kuqala noma kushiya omunye umhwebi ongungumnikazi walelo bhizinisi. Lapha iNkantolo yayichaza ukuthi kulolu hlobo lomqashi isimo noma uhlobo lwebhizinisi elingumqashi kuba nomthelela kulolu daba olumayelana nomhlomulo wokudilizwa.
Omunye umbango nombandela ngowavela ecaleni le MISA / SAMWU obo Members v Madikor Drie (Pty) Ltd [2006] 1 BLLR 12 (LC) lapho khona kwakuthathe umqashi omusha wabe eseshintsha umhlomulo wawehlisela evikini elilodwa ngonyaka umunye, yize ngokwesivumelwano somqashi omdala nabasebenzi lo mhlomulo wawungaphezulu kwalokho. Inyunyana yona yayilwela ukuba lomhlomulo uqhubeke njengoba wawunjalo kumqashi omdala.
UMnu uBheki Khumalo ungumeluleki ozimele kwezomthetho wabasebenzi. Ubuye abengumahluleli nomxazululi emacaleli ngaphansi kweCCMA namaBargaining Councils ahlukene.
