What are the opening hours?

Monday 09:00 - 16:00 Tuesday 09:00 - 16:00 Wednesday 09:00 - 16:00 Thursday 09:00 - 16:00 Friday 09:00 - 16:00

Engage Human Capital Solutions - Pty Ltd, Edenvale (2026)

24/05/2026

🚨 𝐖𝐇𝐄𝐍 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐂𝐈𝐏𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐀 𝐖𝐇𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐁𝐋𝐎𝐖𝐄𝐑 𝐁𝐀𝐂𝐊𝐅𝐈𝐑𝐄𝐒 🚨

This is a very important Labour Court case for employers to understand.

And no — the employee was 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝.

He received a 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠.

But the Labour Court still ordered the employer to pay him 𝐑𝟐𝟐𝟗,𝟔𝟎𝟎 in compensation.

Why?

Because the Court found that the disciplinary action itself amounted to an 𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 linked to whistleblowing.

⚖️ 𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐇𝐀𝐏𝐏𝐄𝐍𝐄𝐃?

In the case of 𝐊𝐮𝐧𝐞𝐧𝐞 𝐯 𝐀𝐤𝐚𝐧𝐢 𝐄𝐠𝐨𝐥𝐢 (𝐏𝐭𝐲) 𝐋𝐭𝐝 𝐭/𝐚 𝐆𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐑𝐞𝐞𝐟 𝐂𝐢𝐭𝐲, the employee applied for an Events Manager position but was not shortlisted.

During a grievance process, he raised concerns about alleged irregularities in the recruitment process.

He alleged that the successful candidate may not have met the advertised minimum requirements and that the appointment process may have been improperly influenced.

Shortly afterwards, he was charged with:

▪️ Breaching POPIA
▪️ Violating the company’s whistleblowing policy
▪️ Gross dishonesty relating to how he obtained the successful candidate’s CV

He was issued with a 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠.

The employee argued that this was not genuine discipline.

He argued that it was 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

And the Labour Court agreed.

📌 The Court found that his disclosure during the grievance process was a 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 under the Protected Disclosures Act.

Importantly, the employee did 𝐧𝐨𝐭 have to prove that his allegations were ultimately correct.

He only had to show that he had a 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐟 that an impropriety had occurred.

The Court found that the disciplinary charges flowed directly from the protected disclosure.

In fact, the Court stated that:

“𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠.”

💰 The employee claimed 12 months’ compensation.

The Court awarded him 𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐬’ 𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐲, amounting to 𝐑𝟐𝟐𝟗,𝟔𝟎𝟎, plus litigation-related costs.

🚫 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐄𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐎𝐘𝐄𝐑 𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐎 𝐀𝐏𝐏𝐄𝐀𝐋…

Gold Reef City applied for leave to appeal.

But the Labour Court said, in legal terms:

𝐍𝐨𝐩𝐞. 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐠𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧.

The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that there were 𝐧𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬.

📌 𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐈𝐒 𝐀𝐍 𝐎𝐂𝐂𝐔𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐀𝐋 𝐃𝐄𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓?

An occupational detriment occurs when an employee suffers negative consequences because they made a protected disclosure.

It can include:

▪️ Dismissal
▪️ Disciplinary action
▪️ Demotion
▪️ Harassment or intimidation
▪️ Being denied promotion or benefits
▪️ Any other workplace prejudice

This case is such a useful reminder because it shows that an employee does 𝐧𝐨𝐭 need to be dismissed for the employer to be in serious trouble.

A retaliatory warning can also become very expensive.

🔥 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐎𝐍 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐄𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐎𝐘𝐄𝐑𝐒

Even if an employee has made you angry…

Even if they embarrassed the business…

Even if they raised uncomfortable issues…

Even if they caused disruption…

Even if you believe they handled the matter badly…

𝐃𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞.

If disciplinary action is genuinely necessary, the employer must be able to show that the discipline is 𝐨𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 and 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞.

Because if the Court finds that the real reason for the disciplinary action was retaliation, the employer may face a costly occupational detriment claim.

✅ 𝐁𝐎𝐓𝐓𝐎𝐌 𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄:

Whistleblowing complaints must be handled carefully.

Investigate the concern.

Separate the complaint from any unrelated misconduct.

Get advice before taking disciplinary action against an employee who has made a protected disclosure.

Because what may look like a normal warning on paper can become a 𝐑𝟐𝟐𝟗,𝟔𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞.

20/05/2026

🌸 Happy International HR Day to our incredible Jeanne-Riëtte 🌸

Today, I want to give flowers where they are so deeply deserved.

Jeanne-Riëtte is the heart behind so much of the HR and payroll support we provide at Engage Human Capital Solutions. She takes care of our clients with such dedication, patience, kindness and professionalism — and somehow, along the way, she becomes part of the family.

Our HR and payroll clients could not survive without her.

And honestly… neither could I.

She is reliable, thoughtful, caring, calm under pressure, and completely irreplaceable. She carries so much, gives so much, and does it all with genuine heart.

Jeanne-Riëtte, I appreciate you more than words can say. I care about you deeply, and I am so incredibly thankful for everything you do — for our clients, for Engage, and for me.

You make a difference every single day.

With love and appreciation,
Nolene
Engage Human Capital Solutions 💜

19/05/2026

🚨 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 “𝐈𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐏𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐂𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐒” 𝐌𝐀𝐘 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐁𝐄 𝐒𝐎 𝐈𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐏𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐌𝐔𝐂𝐇 𝐋𝐎𝐍𝐆

South African employers need to pay very close attention to the proposed labour law amendments currently being discussed.

One of the biggest proposed changes relates to workers who are currently treated as “independent contractors”, but who may in reality be economically dependent on one business.

In plain English?

⚠️ 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐰 𝐦𝐚𝐲 𝐬𝐨𝐨𝐧 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩.

And that could create serious risk for businesses.

Many companies currently use:

▫️ independent contractors
▫️ freelancers
▫️ commission earners
▫️ owner-drivers
▫️ consultants
▫️ delivery workers
▫️ sales agents
▫️ platform workers
▫️ outsourced workers

But here is the problem:

Many of these workers are treated like contractors on paper, while being managed like employees in practice.

They may not be on the payroll.

They may not receive leave.

They may not be registered for UIF.

They may not receive overtime.

They may not have ordinary employee protections.

But if the reality of the relationship shows that the person is not truly running an independent business, and is instead working under the control, direction or economic dependency of one company, the legal position may become far more complicated.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞?

Thinking that calling someone an “independent contractor” in an agreement automatically makes it true.

It does not.

A contract is important, but it is not the end of the enquiry.

The real questions are:

❓ Who controls the work?
❓ Who sets the hours?
❓ Who determines how the work must be done?
❓ Is the person integrated into the business?
❓ Can the person truly work for multiple clients?
❓ Does the person carry real business risk?
❓ Is the company merely a client — or is it effectively the person’s employer?

𝐈𝐟 𝐢𝐭 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞, 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞…

…the law may increasingly treat that person as an employee — or at least extend certain labour protections to that worker.

𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐫𝐬?

Because misclassification can become very expensive.

If a person who was treated as an independent contractor is later found to have employee-type rights, the business may suddenly face claims relating to:

🔹 UIF contributions
🔹 minimum wage compliance
🔹 leave pay
🔹 overtime
🔹 unfair dismissal
🔹 unfair labour practices
🔹 organisational rights
🔹 union involvement
🔹 CCMA disputes

That “cost-saving contractor model” may end up becoming a very expensive CCMA case.

𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐚 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲.

It may affect entire business models.

Businesses that rely heavily on flexible workers, commission-based contractors, drivers, consultants, platform workers or outsourced arrangements should not wait until the law changes before taking action.

𝐍𝐨𝐰 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨:

✅ review your workforce structure
✅ check whether your contractors are genuinely independent
✅ update your agreements
✅ assess the actual working relationship
✅ identify high-risk roles
✅ correct non-compliant practices before they become disputes

𝐌𝐲 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐫𝐬?

Do not panic — but do not ignore this.

A well-structured independent contractor arrangement can still be lawful.

But a poorly disguised employment relationship labelled as an “independent contractor agreement” is a risk.

The name on the contract will not save you if the reality of the relationship says something different.

⚖️ At 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐂𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, we assist employers with practical labour law compliance, contract reviews, workforce structuring, disciplinary processes, retrenchments, CCMA assistance and workplace risk management.

🎉 𝐂𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝟏𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬
🤝 𝐎𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝟒𝟎𝟎 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝
📞 𝟎𝟖𝟒 𝟐𝟐𝟖 𝟎𝟕𝟒𝟕

𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐂𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬
Complete Workplace Solutions

11/05/2026

🚨 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗨𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗩𝗘 𝗗𝗜𝗦𝗠𝗜𝗦𝗦𝗔𝗟 𝗜𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗔𝗡 𝗘𝗦𝗖𝗔𝗣𝗘 𝗥𝗢𝗨𝗧𝗘 𝗙𝗥𝗢𝗠 𝗗𝗜𝗦𝗖𝗜𝗣𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗘

One of the most common misconceptions employees have is that if they resign because they are unhappy with something the employer has done, they can automatically claim 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗹.

That is not correct.

This is especially important where an employee resigns 𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴.

A disciplinary hearing is a lawful workplace process. It is used to investigate allegations of misconduct and to give the employee an opportunity to respond.

Being called to a hearing does 𝗻𝗼𝘁 mean the employee has already been found guilty.

It does 𝗻𝗼𝘁 mean dismissal has already been decided.

And it does 𝗻𝗼𝘁 mean the employer has made continued employment intolerable.

An employee may feel embarrassed, anxious, angry, or offended about being called to a disciplinary hearing. They may believe the allegations are unfair. They may not want to face the process.

But 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗮𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗹.

If the employer has allegations of misconduct, the correct process is to investigate those allegations through a fair disciplinary process.

The employee must then use that process to defend themselves, challenge the evidence, call witnesses, and explain their version.

𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝘃𝗼𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗹.

For constructive dismissal to succeed, the employee must prove that the employer made continued employment 𝗼𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲.

That is a high threshold.

It is not enough for the employee to feel:

▪️ aggrieved
▪️ offended
▪️ frustrated
▪️ criticised
▪️ embarrassed
▪️ uncomfortable
▪️ or angry

The test is not simply whether the employee was unhappy.

The question is whether the employer’s conduct was so serious that the employee had 𝗻𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻.

Many workplace situations may be unpleasant, but they are not automatically constructive dismissal.

Being suspended pending an investigation is 𝗻𝗼𝘁 automatically constructive dismissal.

Receiving a warning is 𝗻𝗼𝘁 automatically constructive dismissal.

Having a strict or unpleasant manager is 𝗻𝗼𝘁 automatically constructive dismissal.

Being involved in workplace conflict is 𝗻𝗼𝘁 automatically constructive dismissal.

Having a pay dispute is 𝗻𝗼𝘁 automatically constructive dismissal.

Being disappointed about a promotion, increase, bonus, or management decision is 𝗻𝗼𝘁 automatically constructive dismissal.

These may be workplace disputes.

But they do not necessarily mean the employment relationship has become intolerable.

Another important point is that employees are generally expected to try to resolve the issue internally before resigning.

If an employee believes they are being mistreated, victimised, unfairly disciplined, underpaid, or subjected to intolerable conditions, they should usually raise the issue through the grievance procedure or other internal processes.

𝗔𝗻 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘂𝘀𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝘀𝘂𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗹𝘆, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗹𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿.

The employer must be given a fair opportunity to investigate and fix the problem.

In 𝗕𝗼𝘀𝗵𝗼𝗳𝗳 𝘃 𝗧𝗦𝗦 𝗚𝘂𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 (𝗣𝘁𝘆) 𝗟𝘁𝗱, the employee resigned after a dispute over a bonus deduction and then alleged constructive dismissal.

The Court rejected the claim and confirmed that constructive dismissal is not established simply because an employee feels aggrieved, offended, or frustrated.

It is only established where continued employment has become objectively intolerable because of the employer’s conduct.

This is an important distinction for employers.

Employees often resign in the heat of workplace disputes and later attempt to reframe the resignation as constructive dismissal once the consequences of resigning become real.

But 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗺.

It is not a shortcut around discipline.

It is not a way to avoid answering misconduct allegations.

It is not a remedy for every workplace dispute.

And it is not triggered simply because the employee feels unfairly treated.

𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿:

✅ Follow proper processes.
✅ Keep proper records.
✅ Issue clear notices.
✅ Allow employees to respond.
✅ Apply discipline consistently.
✅ Do not be intimidated by the label “constructive dismissal” where the facts do not support it.

If an employee resigns instead of facing a lawful disciplinary process, the key question will not be whether the employee was unhappy.

The key question will be whether the employer truly made continued employment objectively intolerable.

And that is a much higher bar.

30/04/2026

✨ 𝟭𝟬 𝗬𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗦 𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗢𝗡𝗚… 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗚𝗥𝗢𝗪𝗜𝗡𝗚! ✨
This year, 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗛𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗦𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 celebrates a full 𝟭𝟬 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 🎉
Over the past decade, we’ve had the privilege of supporting hundreds of businesses across South Africa — helping them navigate the often complex world of people, compliance, and workplace dynamics.
💡 But did you know… we operate through FOUR specialised divisions?
🔹 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗟𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗥𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗦𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀
Practical, expert support in disciplinary hearings, poor performance, ill health, retrenchments, and CCMA matters — ensuring your processes are fair, compliant, and defensible.
🔹 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗛𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝗦𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀
A dedicated HR professional providing weekly on-site support, managing everything from policies and contracts to day-to-day advisory and HR administration — giving your business consistent, hands-on HR expertise without the cost of a full-time resource.
🔹 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗦𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀
Upskilling your team through management training and our Workplace Academy (𝟵𝟬+ topics) — because informed employees and confident managers create stronger businesses.
🔹 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝘆𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗹 𝗦𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀
Accurate, compliant, and stress-free payroll management — ensuring your salaries, statutory submissions, and reporting are always in order.
🚀 One brand. Four powerful solutions.
Designed to support your business at every stage of the employee lifecycle.
📩 Reach out if you’d like to find out how we can support your business
www.engagehcs.co.za
[email protected]

29/04/2026

🚨 THINK 48 HOURS’ NOTICE IS ENOUGH FOR A DISCIPLINARY HEARING? THINK AGAIN.

This is something I came across recently — and I can almost guarantee most employers don’t know this.

We’ve all been working on the assumption:
👉 48 hours’ notice is fair.

But according to the CCMA Guidelines on Disciplinary Processes…

❗ Employees should be given at least THREE DAYS to prepare.

And this matters.

Because when a case ends up at the CCMA, one of the first things a commissioner looks at is:
👉 Was the employee given enough time to prepare?

If not:
• The process can be found procedurally unfair
• The CCMA could issue a compensation award even if the reason for dismissal was fair

📌 Important:
This is not a strict legal rule in the Labour Relations Act — but it IS a guideline that commissioners rely on when assessing fairness.

✔️ Practical takeaway for employers:
Review your processes.
Update your timelines.
Don’t rush hearings unnecessarily.

💬 48 hours might feel fair — but it may not be enough.

25/04/2026

🚨 𝗡𝗘𝗪 𝗪𝗔𝗚𝗘𝗦 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗟𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗘𝗦 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗝𝗢𝗛𝗔𝗡𝗡𝗘𝗦𝗕𝗨𝗥𝗚 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗨𝗥𝗔𝗡𝗧𝗦 – 𝗔𝗥𝗘 𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗣𝗟𝗜𝗔𝗡𝗧?

If your business falls under the Johannesburg Bargaining Council for the Restaurant, Catering & Allied Trades (BCRCAT), take note:

📅 𝗘𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝟭 𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲, new minimum wages and levy increases come into force.

But here’s the important part 👇
This isn’t just a “rate increase” — it’s a **compliance obligation**.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
🔹 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗛𝗔𝗦 𝗖𝗛𝗔𝗡𝗚𝗘𝗗?
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

✔️ 𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗺 𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀
Examples include:
• Chef / Manager: R57.65 per hour
• Assistant Manager: R40.46 per hour

✔️ 𝗟𝗲𝘃𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲
• Now R23.00 per employee per month
• Split equally: R11.50 employer + R11.50 employee

✔️ 𝗘𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝗲𝗲
• Remains unchanged at R30.00

✔️ 𝗗𝘂𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
• These increases apply for the next year

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
⚠️ 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗘𝗠𝗣𝗟𝗢𝗬𝗘𝗥𝗦 𝗢𝗙𝗧𝗘𝗡 𝗚𝗘𝗧 𝗪𝗥𝗢𝗡𝗚
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Many employers assume:

❌ “We already pay above minimum wage — we’re fine”
❌ “This doesn’t apply to us”
❌ “It’s just a guideline”

👉 That is NOT correct.

If your business falls within the scope of the Bargaining Council, these rates are **legally binding**, regardless of your internal pay structures.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
📌 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗡𝗘𝗘𝗗 𝗧𝗢 𝗗𝗢 𝗡𝗢𝗪
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

✔️ Review all employee wage rates
✔️ Adjust salaries where necessary before 1 June 2026
✔️ Update payroll systems to reflect new minimums
✔️ Ensure levy deductions and employer contributions are correct
✔️ Check that all job categories are correctly aligned to council definitions

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
🚫 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗥𝗜𝗦𝗞 𝗢𝗙 𝗡𝗢𝗡-𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗣𝗟𝗜𝗔𝗡𝗖𝗘
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Failure to comply can result in:

⚠️ Back-pay claims
⚠️ Penalties from the Bargaining Council
⚠️ Enforcement action
⚠️ Reputational damage

And importantly — these matters are actively monitored and enforced.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
💬 𝗙𝗜𝗡𝗔𝗟 𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗨𝗚𝗛𝗧
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

This is not just an administrative update — it’s a **legal requirement that directly impacts your payroll, compliance, and risk exposure**.

If you’re unsure whether your business falls under the council, or whether your current payroll is compliant, it’s far better to check now than to fix it later under pressure.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

📩 Need help reviewing your compliance or updating your payroll?
Let’s make sure your business is fully protected before these changes take effect.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

22/04/2026

⚠️ 𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗠𝗜𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗘𝗠𝗣𝗟𝗢𝗬𝗘𝗘𝗦 𝗪𝗛𝗢’𝗩𝗘 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗞𝗘𝗗 𝗕𝗘𝗬𝗢𝗡𝗗 𝗥𝗘𝗧𝗜𝗥𝗘𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗔𝗚𝗘:
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁’𝘀 𝗪𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗿 𝗡𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗛𝗲𝗮𝗿
Most employers think this is simple:
👉 Employee reaches retirement age
👉 You can terminate based on age
👉 Done
But what happens when…
❗ The employee keeps working?
❗ Months pass… sometimes years…
❗ And then you decide to “retire” them later?
That’s exactly what the Constitutional Court dealt with in
👉 Motor Industry Staff Association and Another v Great South Autobody CC t/a Great South Panelbeaters
⚖️ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗜𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲
The law says dismissal based on age is fair if the employee has reached the normal or agreed retirement age.
But the real question is:
👉 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻?
👉 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝘁𝗼 𝗸𝗲𝗲𝗽 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴?
🧠 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗦𝗮𝗶𝗱 (𝗦𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱)
This was a split decision — meaning this area is not straightforward.
✔️ 𝗠𝗮𝗷𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆:
You can still rely on retirement age even if the employee worked beyond it
𝗕𝗨𝗧…
👉 It must be applied fairly
👉 It must not be arbitrary or opportunistic
❗ 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆:
If you allow the employee to continue working:
👉 You may lose the right to rely on retirement later
👉 The employee may believe retirement no longer applies
🚨 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗚𝗲𝘁 𝗜𝘁 𝗪𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴
“Let’s just keep him for now…”
❌ No agreement
❌ No extension terms
❌ No clarity
Then later:
👉 “Now it’s time for you to retire.”
And suddenly…
⚠️ Unfair dismissal claim
⚠️ Age discrimination argument
⚠️ Inconsistency issues
💼 𝗣𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗘𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲
An employee turns 65.
The company says nothing.
He works another 2 years.
Then the employer terminates based on age.
👉 Employer: “This is lawful.”
👉 Employee: “You allowed me to stay — you can’t now retire me.”
👉 Welcome to the grey area.
📌 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗟𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗻
👉 Retirement age does not disappear
👉 But your ability to rely on it becomes riskier over time
✅ 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗦𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗗𝗼
✔️ Have a clear retirement age
✔️ Address it proactively
✔️ If they stay → formalise it
✔️ Avoid silent extensions
✔️ Be consistent
💬 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗧𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁
👉 You can’t ignore retirement…
👉 Then rely on it later when it suits you
⚠️ By then, your legal position may not be as strong as you think

21/04/2026

Ten days. That's all the time left before the new BCEA earnings threshold kicks in.

The threshold has been increased to R269 600.90 per annum (R22 467 per month approximately) marking a 3% increase on last year's R261 748. This was gazetted last week, and takes effect on the 1st of May.

This number matters because it determines who gets automatic statutory protection under the BCEA in terms of:
- Overtime
- Sunday pay
- Public holiday pay
- Night work provisions
- Meal intervals
- Rest periods

If an employee earns below the threshold, those aren't perks, they are legal entitlements.

What actually catches employers off guard right now is the gap between what the law requires and what the payroll system is configured to do. A threshold change means some employees' legislative status has shifted, and payroll doesn't update itself.

So before 1 May, these are the questions worth asking:

- Which employees have moved into the protected band following the increase?
- Do you have new employees being onboarded or recruited on the right structures?
- Are your payroll configurations reflecting their entitlements correctly?
- Do your employment contracts align with their legislative status - or is there a gap waiting to surface at the worst possible moment?
- Are you working with fixed-term contracts, part-time staff, or labour brokers? The LRA and EEA both reference this threshold too.

Ten days is enough time to get this right.
It's not enough time to be casual about it.

Have you or your team started applying these changes since last week? If you need any guidance or a second pair of eyes, you're always welcome to pop me a DM.

hashtag hashtag hashtag hashtag hashtag hashtag

Engage Human Capital Solutions - Pty Ltd

24/05/2026

20/05/2026

19/05/2026

11/05/2026

30/04/2026

29/04/2026

25/04/2026

22/04/2026

21/04/2026

Address

Opening Hours

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Share

Monday	09:00 - 16:00
Tuesday	09:00 - 16:00
Wednesday	09:00 - 16:00
Thursday	09:00 - 16:00
Friday	09:00 - 16:00