Relevant Legislation Regulating Medical Certificates in South Africa

Medical certificate requirements in South Africa derive mainly from Section 23 of Basic Conditions of Employment Act, 1997 “Act No. 75 of 1997” regulations.

• The Basic Conditions of Employment Act states in Section 23(1) that employers can refuse sick pay when absent employees receive medical certificates for only two consecutive days or two instances during an eight-week period.
• Section 23(2) establishes that medical certificates need signature or issuance from medical practitioners together with additional healthcare professionals who are authorized to diagnose and treat patients but are registered members of their professional council.
• According to Section 23(3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act of 1997 every medical certificate must specify that the employee became unable to work because of sickness or injury.

The medical certificate submitted by Malothe to Bidvest Protea Coin (Pty) Ltd [2024] 9 BALR 933 (NBCPSS) failed to satisfy required legal elements because it did not contain valid information about the doctor’s practicing license or an address verification (Republic of South Africa, 1997).

Evaluation of Evidence and Balance of Probabilities

Evidence Provided:

• The medical certificate presented only provided contact by phone as well as a different doctor signature than what the employee named on their application.
• The individual produced duplicate fraudulent medical certificates to the police force on six occasions because this behaviour showed evident deliberate wrongdoing.
• During their investigation the employer established that the documentation process was carried out fraudulently.
• The applicant did not show any documented evidence to prove his visit to the medical facility by either taking a photograph or getting verification from another source.
• The applicant initially suggested ignorance about the fraudulent activity until he acknowledged receiving payment from the doctor which conflicts with his previous statement regarding the valid nature of the certificate (Fanie, 2024).
• The applicant neglected to provide any written reply even though authorities offered him the chance to defend himself through letters.
• The employee worked at the company for six years which suggested that he should understand proper medical certificate requirements (Trevino and Nelson, 2021; Johnson, 2014).

Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence and Valid Medical Certificate Requirements

Hearsay Evidence:

South African labour law permits only testimonies that match direct evidence to be used as formal court evidence. The Law of Evidence Amendment Act, 1988 “Act No. 45 of 1988” enables evidence through hearsay when it receives confirmation from factual details or when judicial interests authorize such admission under Section 3(1)(c). The employer’s investigation proved the fraud directly which invalidated the unsupported testimony presented by the applicant (Government of South Africa, 2022).

Three Requirements for a Valid Medical Certificate:

• The certificate requires authorization from a Health Professions Council of South Africa certified doctor.
• The medical document must contain both complete practice locations with address and working telephone contact information.
• The certificate needs to verify both the illness type and dates when the employee could not work although confidentiality remains protected.

The absent essential elements in the applicant’s medical certificate led to legal dismissal because it was both valid and reasonable (Pless and Maak, 2012).

Procedural Fairness and Substantive Fairness

The Labour Court made a fair decision to prove Maho’s dismissal valid as it correctly measured both the procedural and substantive fairness principles.

Procedural Fairness

The correct disciplinary procedures must be enacted to dismiss an employee according to the principles of procedural fairness. At the start of 2017 SAB chose not to discipline Maho because available evidence was insufficient to support the action. When SAPS provided its report in 2019 the company initiated a proper disciplinary process that led to his dismissal through misconduct procedures. The due process allowed Maho to present his defence in a correct and procedurally proper dismissal procedure (Brown, et. al. 2005).

Substantive Fairness

The basis for dismissal needs to pass both the examination of validity and justification through substantive fairness. The evidence demonstrated that Maho operated the company vehicle while emotionally impaired to a level four times higher than South African legal limits. The company remained unaware about how intoxicated he truly was because of his dishonest disclosure enabling him to operate at work and maintain access to company resources. His unethical conduct simultaneously broke organizational trusts and company standards while creating unsafe traffic conditions for public passengers. Based on the severe nature of his wrongdoings, dismissal proved to be the appropriate disciplinary measure (Ferrel, et. al. 2019).

Conclusion

The Labour Court determined correctly that the CCMA made wrongful decisions when reinstating Maho to his position. The severe nature of his infraction along with trust loss damage proved consequent enough to merit his dismissal. The long period SAB allowed him to stay resulted in no sufficient defence against his major misconduct. The dismissal process stood as both practically and materially proper.

Two Arguments in Mitigation and Aggravation

Mitigation (Argument supporting a lesser sanction)

• Scotairway Airways permitted Maho Cunningham to keep working his position for 22 months following the disciplinary incident. The late response to his misconduct led both the offender and other staff members to believe the misconduct had been overlooked or that the act was insignificant enough not to merit dismissal.
• The absence of any proof showing Maho engaged in misconduct became evident for the complete 22 months. The lack of further incidents following his continued employment could indicate that he extracted a lesson from his mistake (Heres, 2024).

Aggravation (Arguments Supporting Dismissal)

• Maho deliberately concealed his alcohol use to his employer giving his organization nearly two years of delayed consequences through deception. The dishonesty of Maho severed the trustworthy bond between SAB and himself.
• Driving under the influence creates significant employer misconduct which jeopardizes public safety and endangers company assets as well as damages the company reputation. The level of offense warranted instant employee termination.

Three Lessons from Labor Court Ruling for Future Application

• Employers need to take fast action whenever they have reasons to suspect misconduct because this helps avoid issues during future legal investigations. Any delay in taking disciplinary action reduces a company’s basis to terminate an employee’s employment.
• Dishonest conduct serves as a main determinant for evaluating unjust dismissal cases between employers and employees. The workplace requires employees to maintain ethical conduct because deception can grant valid reasons for terminating employment.
• The CCMA and other labour dispute resolution bodies need to evaluate evidence regarding dishonesty and its effects on trust relations with extreme care. The lack of proper assessment by the Labour Court enables the court to nullify awarded compensation (Beal, 2014).

Company Policy on Code of Conduct

Company Name: [Manufacturer’s Name]

Policy Title: Employee Conduct and Disciplinary Guidelines

Effective Date: [Date]

Department Responsible: Human Resources

Purpose and Scope

An employee conduct policy sets specific guidelines to guarantee workplace ethics standards together with disciplinary measures for upholding accountability and maintaining integrity. This policy extends its coverage to every employee category starting from permanent staff moving to temporary and reaching contract workers. Any misconduct against trust or safety integrity or dishonest misconduct requires structured disciplinary protocols for resolution (Freeman, et.al 2018).

Classification of Misconduct and Disciplinary Actions

Category of Misconduct	Examples from Case Studies	Definition	First Offense	Second Offense	Third Offense
Ordinary Misconduct	Minor dishonesty, failure to follow minor policies	Less serious violations that do not cause major harm to the company or employees but still require corrective action	Verbal warning	Written warning	Final written warning
Gross Misconduct	Fraudulent medical certificate submission (Case Study 1), Dishonesty regarding misconduct (Case Study 2)	Severe violations, including fraud, dishonesty, and actions that severely breach company policy	Summary dismissal	N/A	N/A
Serious Misconduct	Driving under the influence (Case Study 2)	Acts that pose a safety risk, violate policies, or damage the employer-employee relationship	Final written warning	Dismissal	N/A

Guidelines for Specific Offenses and Penalties

Fraudulent Medical Certificates (Case Study 1)

• Claiming false medical evidence amounts to gross misconduct because it includes both deceptive actions and policy infractions at work.
• The organization needs to perform a rigorous examination of medical certificates for authenticity before performing any disciplinary actions.
• A discovered case of workplace fraud requires immediate dismissal since the trust foundation between employers and their employees cannot be reestablished.

Dishonesty in Workplace Investigations (Case Study 2)

• Staff are required to respond accurately with details to workplace occurrence examinations. A breach of trust and a major problem with internal procedures emerges when employees give purposeful misinformation.
• The organization will perform a review when dishonest conduct affects major employment decisions regarding disciplinary actions or retention decisions and might apply penalties respectively (Garriga and Mele, 2004).
• Employee dismissal becomes appropriate when evidence proves dishonesty resulted in altering company decisions based on the Labour Court’s decision in Case Study 2.

Driving under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs (Case Study 2)

• Using company vehicles under the influence creates an extreme safety danger which both endangers lives and damages company standing.
• Company policies state disciplinary procedures will be initiated for employees who remain intoxicated during work shifts and while engaged in company property management.
• The code mandates a written warning with required counselling as first disciplinary action yet requires instant termination following a second offense because of risk-associated seriousness.

Investigation and Disciplinary Procedures

The process of conducting investigations needs to remain open and honest because fair treatment guarantees responsible discipline for employees. The organization conducts its procedures through predefined steps.

• Step 1: Human Resources personnel alongside appropriate department heads start by assessing the complaint while collecting evidence to establish if disciplinary measures should proceed. When employees become subjects of misconduct investigations the company will give them notice before allowing their initial responses.
• Step 2: The organization will schedule a formal disciplinary hearing after officers confirm that misconduct evidence exists. During these proceedings the accused employee obtains the right to select a representative as well as the right to share their perspective and question presented evidence in their defence. The proceedings will be managed by a group of neutral personnel or disciplinary authority.
• The decision in Step 3 will evaluate evidence regarding misconduct by using the balance of probabilities standard which requires sufficient proof to determine misconduct. Proportional disciplinary actions will be put into effect. Any employee can file an appeal regarding an unfair disciplinary decision or evidence within five working-day periods.
• Step 4: The appropriate disciplinary responses from warnings to employment dismissal will be selected through findings collected during the process. The HR department will file this record for later use (Labour Guide, 2024).

The Employee Status of Checkers Sixty60 Drivers: A Comparative Analysis with Rideshare Drivers

Introduction

Labor protection along with worker classification issues arose from the emergence of the gig economy. The company Checkers Sixty60 receives criticism about the way it operates with its Pingo drivers because of concerns regarding employee job security and payment structure. This document evaluates Pingo drivers’ work environment then investigates identical contractor situations followed by analysing a relevant situation before recommending policies.

Employee Status of Checkers Sixty60 Drivers

Through classification policies Checkers Sixty60 decides their delivery staff work as independent contractors instead of regular staff members. The independent contracting status delivers substantial effects on their eligibility for labour protections and employee rights. Independent contractors maintain no access to worker benefits which include paid time off alongside unemployment insurance and dismissal safeguards. Sixty60 drivers maintain that their situation aligns with regular employment situations because Pingo maintains control over their timetable distribution and pay structure and disciplinary procedure implementation (Poff and Michalos, 2023).

Multiple essential elements determine the employment controversy described here:

• Although Sixty60 drivers hold independent contractor status they do not have the freedom to set their work schedules. The delivery app both controls the time workers can work and sets assignments which prohibits them from making independent choices regarding their work schedule.
• The per-delivery payment system that drivers use makes their income distribution vulnerable since Pingo eliminated a previous minimum fee assurance. A significant number of drivers encounter difficulties because of their expenses for fuel and rental of bikes.
• The platform’s arbitrary driver blocking system which occurs without notification and fair processes creates issues regarding both security in employment and fair procedures.

Drivers’ Grievances

Multiple complaints have emerged from Sixty60 drivers who experienced mistreatment at the hands of Pingo. These include:

• Many drivers at Pingo note that the company implements regular hiring and firing cycles that match the unpredictability of customer demand. Multiple drivers face unstable earnings and job instability because of the current recruitment practices.
• Internal working schedule changes usually occur without driver notification according to various employee reports. When drivers started their employment at Pingo they worked nine-hour shifts yet certain personnel were instructed to switch to longer 07:00 to 19:30 working days.
• The elimination of R350 daily minimum wages exposed drivers to reduced pay because they received payment only for each delivery made. Multiple industrial actions broke out when drivers took united action against unfair wage regulations.
• The system blocked app access from drivers who expressed issues about the work environment without providing any reason for termination. The company took away their bicycles from drivers even though the bicycles were part of rental contracts (Puchert, 2024).

Comparison with Rideshare Drivers

Aspect	Sixty60 Drivers	Rideshare Drivers (Uber/Bolt)
Employment Status	Classified as independent contractors.	Also classified as independent contractors.
Control Over Work	App determines orders, schedules, and earnings.	Drivers can log in/off at will but face algorithmic control.
Earnings	Paid per delivery; no minimum guarantee.	Paid per ride; fares fluctuate based on demand.
Job Security	Risk of sudden dismissal without notice.	Risk of deactivation, but generally with a dispute process.
Operational Costs	Drivers bear fuel, bike rental, and maintenance costs.	Drivers cover fuel, vehicle maintenance, and insurance.

According to the 2021 court verdict of Uber BV v Aslam & Others the Uber platform established worker status because the company held dominance in fare rates and maintained worker agreements and required work performance. The newly received status allowed them to claim minimum wage and access paid time off. Sixty60 drivers have legal standing to demand employee status based on the current precedent of a worker-classification status (Supreme Court of UK, 2024).

Recommendations

The safe working environment of Checkers Sixty60 and Pingo can be improved by establishing the following employee-related policies.

Clear and Transparent Employment Contracts:

Pingo should provide detailed information about driver rights and duties that exist under their employment agreements. All employment contracts should specify exact pay information as well as rules regarding work schedule along with rules for disciplinary actions. The practice of making everything clear will minimize conflicts at work while also increasing job certainty.

Fair Dismissal and Grievance Procedures:

The company should create an organized process for handling grievances and disputes. Before dismissing drivers Pingo should warn them properly and explain the reason for dismissal while providing them with the right to file an appeal. The procedure matches requirements for fair labour practices.

Guarantee Minimum Earning and Subsidies:

Sixty60 needs to bring back its daily minimum guarantee for financial security or offer help paying operational costs that include fuel and vehicle maintenance expenses. This improvement would boost employee satisfaction and maintain worker presence at the organization (Crane, et. al. 2019).

Conclusion

The determination of whether Checkers Sixty60 drivers receive employee or contractor status continues as a primary matter that influences their occupational rights and workplace safety. The extent of Pingo’s control over drivers transforms them into employment status while they are technically independent contractors. The implementation of labour reforms must occur to fix the problem of unfair employee dismissals along with earnings instability. Cases like Uber BV v Aslam highlight conditions for employee classification. Sixty60 should establish open contracts along with unbiased complaint procedures and minimum wage guarantees to protect their workers.