CMG3701 Assignment 3 2024
Unique Number:
DUE DATE: 31 July 2024
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning,
comparison and reference purpose,
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the
contents of this document as your own work,
Fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise
or misuse this document.
Disclaimer
Extreme care has been used to create this
document, however the contents are provided “as
is” without any representations or warranties,
express or implied. The author assumes no
liability as a result of reliance and use of the
contents of this document. This document is to
be used for comparison, research and reference
purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be
reproduced, resold or transmitted in any form or
by any means.
, 0688120934
PREVIEW
Question 1
1.1 Misconduct in the workplace refers to any inappropriate or unacceptable behavior by
an employee that violates organizational policies, codes of conduct, or legal standards. It
can encompass a wide range of actions, including insubordination, chronic absenteeism,
negligence, and breach of trust. In the context of employment for educators, misconduct
is particularly significant because it can adversely affect the educational environment, the
students' learning experience, and the overall functioning of the school.
In South Africa, the termination of employment for educators due to misconduct is
governed by several key pieces of legislation and regulatory frameworks. One of the
primary legislative instruments is the Labour Relations Act (LRA) 66 of 1995, which
outlines the procedures and requirements for fair dismissal. According to the LRA, a
dismissal is considered fair if it is related to the employee's conduct, capacity, or the
operational requirements of the employer (LRA, 1995, Section 188). Chronic
absenteeism, as in Mr. Hanyane's case, constitutes misconduct as it disrupts the school's
operations and negatively impacts students' education.
Additionally, the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998 specifically addresses issues
of educator misconduct. This Act stipulates that educators can be dismissed for a range
of infractions, including habitual absenteeism and failing to comply with formal procedures
such as submitting leave forms (Employment of Educators Act, 1998, Section 18). It also
mandates a fair procedure for dealing with misconduct, which includes giving the educator
a chance to respond to allegations during a disciplinary hearing (Section 24).
Disclaimer
Extreme care has been used to create this document, however the contents are provided “as is”
without any representations or warranties, express or implied. The author assumes no liability as
a result of reliance and use of the contents of this document. This document is to be used for
comparison, research and reference purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be
reproduced, resold or transmitted in any form or by any means.
, 0688120934
Question 1
1.1 Misconduct in the workplace refers to any inappropriate or unacceptable behavior by
an employee that violates organizational policies, codes of conduct, or legal standards. It
can encompass a wide range of actions, including insubordination, chronic absenteeism,
negligence, and breach of trust. In the context of employment for educators, misconduct
is particularly significant because it can adversely affect the educational environment, the
students' learning experience, and the overall functioning of the school.
In South Africa, the termination of employment for educators due to misconduct is
governed by several key pieces of legislation and regulatory frameworks. One of the
primary legislative instruments is the Labour Relations Act (LRA) 66 of 1995, which
outlines the procedures and requirements for fair dismissal. According to the LRA, a
dismissal is considered fair if it is related to the employee's conduct, capacity, or the
operational requirements of the employer (LRA, 1995, Section 188). Chronic
absenteeism, as in Mr. Hanyane's case, constitutes misconduct as it disrupts the school's
operations and negatively impacts students' education.
Additionally, the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998 specifically addresses issues
of educator misconduct. This Act stipulates that educators can be dismissed for a range
of infractions, including habitual absenteeism and failing to comply with formal procedures
such as submitting leave forms (Employment of Educators Act, 1998, Section 18). It also
mandates a fair procedure for dealing with misconduct, which includes giving the educator
a chance to respond to allegations during a disciplinary hearing (Section 24).
In Mr. Hanyane's case, his repeated unauthorized absences and failure to submit leave
forms constitute clear misconduct under the Employment of Educators Act. Despite being
warned by the new principal, Mr. Hanyane continued with his absenteeism, showing
disregard for school policies and his professional responsibilities. The principal's decision
Disclaimer
Extreme care has been used to create this document, however the contents are provided “as is”
without any representations or warranties, express or implied. The author assumes no liability as
a result of reliance and use of the contents of this document. This document is to be used for
comparison, research and reference purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be
reproduced, resold or transmitted in any form or by any means.