Pestilence and lightning bolts

The title should read ‘ Sex pestilence and lightning bolts’ but after my last newsletter, which didn’t go down well in a certain quarter, I thought that, this time round, I would stay clear of any controversy! And while on the topic, I once again wish to apologise to that individual for my wicked sense of humour which I should have known is not universally appreciated and could cause offense. Also to my principal who, as a result, felt the heat. I think those of you who know me well will concur that I’m relatively harmless? And, I must thank all of those who have encouraged me to continue using humour as a means to convey this serious OHS message. I really appreciate your e mails.

By fear not. I haven’t been entirely converted and will still use all weapons in my arsenal to keep you gripped to my newsletters and to actually read them. (By the way arsenal is not a rude word – it’s a soccer team)!

It’s been relatively quite on the OHS front, barring the usual barrage of media statements emanating from the prolific DoL Liaison Office aka Dr Snuki Zikalala condemning everyone in sight - invariably employers - after construction-related incidents or other more broadly socially popular 'labour law' contraventions. That is to say until the last few days, when suddenly a few real developments began feeding my brain and necessitating this newsletter. One being that very important civil case decision in which the Supreme Court of Appeals rejected an indemnity defence raised by a Golf Club after a widow’s husband was killed by lightning at the golf range. The indemnity or exclusion which was signed by both her and her deceased husband / breadwinner, exempting the club from any liability in the event of injury to either. I’m not going to delve too deeply into the case yet as the Law Report has not been generated but will hyperlink you to the articles in the media. You may ask what its relevance is since it is civil law and the OHS Act is criminal law. But most of you (employers) do require an indemnity to be signed by persons entering your workplace and some of you even indemnify yourself against your own negligence along the lines of the Durban’s Water Wonderland SCA case. These indemnities are therefore relevant as they are designed to protect you against civil suits invariably of an OHS nature. Well the bad news is that they may be ruled to be unconstitutional down the line. But let’s not jump the gun. Retain them until challenged.

Without the luxury of a Law Report at my disposal, I can tell you that the widow did succeed, despite the indemnity, because her claim was not based on personal injury but for loss of support and other costs. The real relevance will be revealed later when we dissect the case and hear why some of the learned judges felt that it would also be potentially unconstitutional to allow person to sign indemnities which deprive their dependents of the right to sue employers if they, the signatories, are injured, become ill or die at your workplace.

And then there is our Sex Pest case. And I can hear you all groan. What’s its relevance you ask? Isn’t the Devil’s Advocate just being unnecessarily wicked again. And the answer is a resounding hell no! ‘If Sonja Grobler could give the devil a name it would be Gasant Samuels’ – Sunday Independent of 20 March 2004. (So I'm off the hook). The court in this matter held that the employer is liable to compensate an employee since the employer failed to provide the employee (Sonja Grobler the complainant) with a safe working environment after she has complained about repeated sexual harassment at the workplace. Once again I’m going to hyperlink you to the articles but am now going to pose this question to you that I will be addressing at my forthcoming workshops. In such a scenario, where an employee is being sexually harassed and the employer fails to protect him or her, would that employer potentially be criminally liable in terms of section 8 of the OHS Act – or its equivalent in the MHS Act – since section 8 compels employers to provide their employees with a safe working environment? And why can she sue while other employers are prohibited in terms of section 35 of the COID Act? The answer is simple and will be provided to Subscribers in the their special March Newsletter and will be shared with delegates at my forthcoming road shows.

Subscribers, you may wish to refresh your memories regarding Indemnities by clicking here. We will look at the cases in more detail as the Law Reports become available.

A special word of thanks to those Early Birds who have already registered for our forthcoming OHS legislative Workshops. You’ve earned great discounts. Remember if you book on line and pay timeously, you immediately qualify for a 10% discount. Some (Subscriber) Early Birds have already earned themselves 45% discount per delegate. Our postal mailers should be in your post boxes this week after a stressful period of printing where everything seemed jinxed. (When you read the word ‘See other side’, it means read the next third page)!

More information by click here plus our detailed agenda which is constantly being updated. We will also fax the detailed agenda upon request if you battle to download it off the website at http://www.klasslooch.com/june_sem_info_2004.htm. I have been frantically busy working on the new PowerPoint Laptop Presentation which represents a radical departure from my previous ‘shows’. I will be using a more organigram-orientated slide show as opposed to transparencies stuffed with endless wording but will stick fairly religiously to the handouts which will contain the required text. The emphasis is, however, going to be on the new ball game i.e. the new OHS legislative policing environment that requires dramatic change of tactics by employers.

Hope to see all at the workshops.

Many of you have approached me with LRA-orientated queries and I’m proud to announce that I have formed – and endorsed – an alliance with Labourinform which you can contact directly by clicking here. Remember nothing is for free but Subscribers will enjoy the same generous discounts.

By the way. I’ll be on some tropical island – I’m not paying because I’m naturally always broke – from 8 to 17 April. (3 working days leave). Please don’t phone me on my cell phone because I pay but leave instead a message on 011 7267839, fax 011 72664643 or e mail me at raynard@klassloooch.com and I’ll get back to you upon my return. (Isn’t nice to have rich friends?).

Special Subscriber Newsletter to follow. To track these Newsletters click here.

Your fiend

The Devil’s Advocate. (Charlize, thank you for starring in my movie. Did I play Al Pacino?)

If you had to identify, in one word, the reason why the human race
has not achieved, and never will achieve, its full potential, that word
would be "meetings."

More