Latest News Archive
Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
19 November 2018
|
Story Charlene Stanley
|
Photo Charlene Stanley
Prof John Mubangizi, Dean of the Faculty of Law, encouraged delegates at the Fifth Annual International Mercantile Conference to share ideas on best international practice in their various fields.
“Don’t say anything online that you wouldn’t want plastered on a billboard with your face on it.”
This famous quote by international tech expert Erin Bury should be a guiding light when it comes to online habits in the workplace, according to Francois Cilliers, UFS Lecturer in Mercantile Law.
In his presentation Could Social Media be the Gateway to Employment Discrimination? he warned that employees have a responsibility not to bring their employers in disrepute through their comments on social media.
“Posts, updates, tweets, and comments are considered to be publications and can therefore never be seen as privileged information,” he explained.
Responsibility on employees and employers alike
He pointed out that employers also had a responsibility regarding the way in which they use the information about prospective employees obtained via social media.
“Nowadays, approximately 75% of companies hire through social media. In the US, recruiting companies spend hours researching candidates, making full use of what they can find on social media. It was found that 50–80% of employers frowned upon posts and pictures featuring drug and alcohol abuse, profanity, and bad grammar.”
He warned that employers needed to tread lightly, as a decision not to employ someone as a result of information on the prospective employee’s political views and sexual orientation could constitute unfair discrimination as set out in the Employment Equity Act.
“An employer who wishes to use a screening process (utilising social media) has to prove that the information and the process is objectively necessary and can be justified with reference to the inherent requirements of the job,” he explained.
“As technology and electronic systems advance, so too should the applicable labour laws.”
Cilliers’ presentation formed part of the Fifth Annual International Mercantile Law Conference recently hosted by the Faculty of Law on the Bloemfontein Campus.
Incorporating new technology in teaching and research
“This conference is an opportunity to share ideas on best practice in what is perceived as a ‘difficult’ field within Law,” said Prof John Mubangizi, Dean of the Faculty of Law, as he opened the proceedings. Topics in the discussion sessions ranged from Racism in the workplace and The underrepresentation of females in the judiciary, to Decriminalisation of cannabis: A recipe for healthy employer-employee relations?
“Conferences such as these help us to take advantage of the newest developments in technology to advance our teaching and research,” said Prof Mubangizi.
“To quote Einstein: ‘We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.’”
Clarification of charges against the Reitz students
2009-10-24
Statement by Prof. Jonathan Jansen, Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Free State (UFS)
The University of the Free State (UFS) has not “withdrawn charges” against the four Reitz students. This needs to be clarified.
There are three processes underway, and they must not be confused:
- 1. The criminal charges against the students were laid by the Directorate of Special Prosecutions in the province, and the university has no say over those processes in the criminal courts. That process remains in place.
- The human rights charges are led by the Human Rights Commission, in the province, and the university has no say over those processes in the equality court. That process remains in place.
- The university simply withdrew its own complaint against the students, insofar as university processes are concerned, and on that basis decided to invite the students back to continue their studies and to re-open Reitz as a model of social justice and racial reconciliation as an exemplary university residence. These decisions alone fall within the realm of the university’s authority.
The decision with respect to the withdrawal of the university’s complaint against the students was based on two considerations:
a. the institution’s own accountability for what happened, and creating (or not interrupting) the conditions under which racism and racist attacks were even possible on the campus of an institution of higher learning. It is in this context that the institution has decided to offer reparations for harm to the dignity and esteem of the five workers.
b. the institution’s desire to create the conditions for racial reconciliation on a deeply divided campus, and in doing so to accelerate the chances of transformation at the UFS.
There were broad consultations with the Human Rights Commission, Cosatu provincial, Sasco, Nehawu as representatives of the workers; there were also discussions with the leadership of the Student Representative Council (SRC) about the need to resolve the Reitz issue outside of the courts; and the matter of Reitz and its resolution through negotiation was also raised with the Minister of Higher Education and Training. There were also meetings with the legal representatives of both the students and the provincial prosecuting authority.
There was a meeting with the workers to ensure them of the university’s full support for them as workers, but the case itself was only discussed with their representatives, Nehawu.
Sasco National has communicated a message of support to the university to return the two students and to re-open the Reitz residence.
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail:
loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za
19 October 2009