INCORPORATING COLD CHAIN
NEWS
COLD LINK AFRICA PUBLISHED BY Interact Media Defined ( Pty ) Ltd 13A Riley Rd , Bedfordview 2009 , South Africa PO Box 695 , Edenvale , 1610 Tel : + 27 ( 0 ) 11 579 4940 Web : www . interactmedia . co . za
PUBLISHING UNIT LEAD : Dale Macnamara sales @ interactmedia . co . za
Conundrum between employer obligation
EDITOR : Benjamin Brits benjamin @ interactmedia . co . za CONSULTING EDITOR AND CONTRIBUTOR : John Ackermann and employee rights
ADVERTISING SALES External sales : Dale Macnamara sales @ interactmedia . co . za Zeldalee du Toit | zeldalee @ interactmedia . co . za
SUBSCRIPTIONS : Maxlee Marange | mmarange @ interactmedia . co . za Ralph Shongwe | ralph @ interactmedia . co . za
SUB-EDITOR : Tarren Bolton tarren @ interactmedia . co . za
DESIGN AND LAYOUT : Glyniss Bone glyniss @ interactmedia . co . za
PROCESS CO-ORDINATOR : Lebo Bucibo lebo @ interactmedia . co . za
MANAGEMENT Finance / operations : Sean Macnamara sean @ interactmedia . co . za Finance : Laetitia Arnott | laetitia @ interactmedia . co . za
PRINTING : TYPO
DISTRIBUTION : distribution @ interactmedia . co . za
CIRCULATION : June - December 2020 Print : 2096 | Online : 721
ENVIRONMENT-FRIENDLY PRINTING : All paper is sourced from the Forest Stewardship Council and Chain of Custody-certified suppliers . All wastepaper from the plant is recycled . All used plates are recycled . All new printing equipment is purchased for low energy-consumption levels and low volatile organic-compound emissions .
DISCLAIMER : While every reasonable precaution has been taken to ensure the accuracy of the advice and information given , neither the editor , publisher , proprietor , staff , nor any official body represented or published in this issue , will accept responsibility for any damages , loss , injuries , or false claims that may arise or be made in the content . Including but not limited to any references to gender , religion , politics , ethnicity , or personal preferences of any editorial contribution whether an industry expert , advertiser through sponsored or paid content or contract writer . We subscribe to the Codes of Conduct of the Advertising Standards Authority ( www . asasa . co . za ) and the Press Ombudsman ( see below ). Disclaimers by individual companies are hereby overridden by this disclaimer .
COPYRIGHT : Reproduction of any of the content and photographs is expressly forbidden in terms of the Copyright Act of 1987 with all amendments . All requests to reproduce must be made in writing to the publisher and such confirmation must be given in writing before proceeding . A copy of where the reproduction was published must be supplied to the publisher at the above address . All publication and exhibition titles are registered as trademarks in terms of the Trademarks Act of 1993 and are held by Interact Media Defined ( Pty ) Ltd , Reg No 2014 / 092774 / 07 .
PRESS OMBUDSMAN : This publication has committed itself to maintain the highest standards of journalism as embodied in the Press Code of Professional Practice . If you believe we have failed to report news and comment accurately , honestly , and fairly , you may lodge a complaint with the Press Ombudsman either by email , fax , or letter , or by telephoning the office for the procedure to be followed .
Website : www . ombudsman . org . za for the press code and complaints procedure .
OFFICIAL PUBLICATION
South African law currently does not have any legislation that specifically requires employees to take the Covid-19 vaccination , however , many considerations are on the table .
The South African President has been consistently insistent that no one would be forced to take the vaccination that is being rolled out in a governmental attempt to vaccinate 67 % of the population ( approximately 40-million people in South Africa ), to achieve what is known as ‘ herd immunity ’.
All employees hold the constitutional rights to their bodily integrity , culture and religion in anticipation of pushback against the vaccine . However , we need to explore further whether these rights can be justifiably limited in the context of an employer ’ s obligation to create a healthy and safe working environment for all . We also must consider whether being vaccinated could be considered to be an inherent requirement of the job .
As a starting point , the Occupational Health and Safety Act , 1993 ( OHSA ) states that , “ every employer shall provide and maintain , as far as is reasonably practicable , a working environment that is safe and without risk to the health of his employees .” A similar provision is contained in the Mine Health and Safety Act , 1996 ( MHSA ). In addition , the National Health Act , 2003 (“ NHA ”) stipulates that a health service , which would include the administration of any medication or vaccination , may not be provided to a person without their consent , unless the failure to treat the said person will result in a serious risk to public health .
The question then becomes whether an employer could , taking into account these statutes , implement a mandatory vaccination policy in the workplace . An employer ’ s obligation to provide a safe and healthy working environment and an employees ’ constitutional rights to bodily integrity , religion , culture , and the like , will need to be balanced in the assessment of whether there are justifiable grounds to limit the rights in this regard .
In light of the seriousness of the spread of Covid-19 , and the risk it poses to public health , if employees are not vaccinated , they pose a danger to other ( vaccinated and unvaccinated ) employees . Vaccination is not an absolute bar to contracting the virus , however , it is said to reduce one ’ s chances of contracting the disease . The justifiability of the limitation of any constitutional rights will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis .
However , conceivably , infringement of an employees ’ rights may well
Creative Commons
By ENS Africa
be justified on grounds such as the employer ’ s operational requirements or health and safety considerations in certain circumstances . There could be , for instance , an entire workforce that is working remotely and as such , there is far less chance of them contracting the virus as would be the case in a densely populated working environment .
In these circumstances , the limitation of an employee ’ s constitutional right to bodily integrity would likely not be justified on the basis of an employer ’ s health and safety obligations .
Aside from an employer ’ s health and safety obligations , could vaccination be an inherent requirement of the job , for instance , in the context of healthcare workers ?
The Labour Court has held that for a requirement to be inherent it must be so intrinsic that if not met an applicant would simply not qualify for the post and that the indispensable attribute must be job related . If the job can be performed without the requirement , then it cannot be said that the requirement is inherent .
In addition , and in the Supreme Court of Appeal in Department of Correctional Services and another v Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union and others , it was held that a policy is not justified if it restricts a practice of religious belief and by necessary extension , a cultural belief , that does not affect an employee ’ s ability to perform his duties , nor jeopardise the safety of the public or other employees , nor cause undue hardship to the employer in a practical sense .
If an employee were not to be vaccinated , it has the potential to impact on the safety of the public as well as other employees . It could therefore be argued that there is a rational connection established between purported purpose of the limitation of their rights and the measure taken , being the implementation of a mandatory vaccination policy in the workplace .
However , the link is quite tenuous when considering what an inherent requirement of the job is in terms of the Labour Court ’ s view . Could a healthcare worker conduct their work absent the vaccination ? The answer is yes ( provided they do not contract the virus ). In this instance , it would unlikely be an inherent requirement of the job . If an international air hostess , on the other hand , were to be precluded from entering the countries on her flight route without having had the vaccination , this would inhibit her ability to perform her duties .
In these circumstances , an argument that the vaccination is an inherent requirement of her job would likely be more successful . Perhaps a justification could also be sought in the employer ’ s broader operational requirements .
The question then becomes if employees refuse to be vaccinated , what next ? Can the employer discipline them ? Can the employees claim discrimination ? Is the employer obliged to accommodate those employees , and under what circumstances ? Each situation could reveal a number of outcomes , but worth thoughts of proactiveness .
CLA
If an employee were not to be vaccinated , it could potentially have the impact of the safety of the public as well as other employees .
COLD LINK AFRICA • March / April 2021 www . coldlinkafrica . co . za 5