Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
19 November 2018 | Story Charlene Stanley | Photo Charlene Stanley
On Social Media, Racism, and Cannabis
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.’”

News Archive

The failure of the law
2004-06-04

 

Written by Lacea Loader

- Call for the protection of consumers’ and tax payers rights against corporate companies

An expert in commercial law has called for reforms to the Companies Act to protect the rights of consumers and investors.

“Consumers and tax payers are lulled into thinking the law protects them when it definitely does not,” said Prof Dines Gihwala this week during his inaugural lecture at the University of the Free State’s (UFS).

Prof Gihwala, vice-chairperson of the UFS Council, was inaugurated as extraordinary professor in commercial law at the UFS’s Faculty of Law.

He said that consumers, tax payers and shareholders think they can look to the law for an effective curb on the enormous power for ill that big business wields.

“Once the public is involved, the activities of big business must be controlled and regulated. It is the responsibility of the law to oversee and supervise such control and regulation,” said Prof Gihwala.

He said that, when undesirable consequences occur despite laws enacted specifically to prevent such results, it must be fair to suggest that the law has failed.

“The actual perpetrators of the undesirable behaviour seldom pay for it in any sense, not even when criminal conduct is involved. If directors of companies are criminally charged and convicted, the penalty is invariably a fine imposed on the company. So, ironically, it is the money of tax payers that is spent on investigating criminal conduct, formulating charges and ultimately prosecuting the culprits involved in corporate malpractice,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala the law continuously fails to hold companies meaningfully accountable to good and honest business values.

“Insider trading is a crime and, although legislation was introduced in 1998 to curb it, not a single successful criminal prosecution has taken place. While the law appears to be offering the public protection against unacceptable business behaviour, it does no such thing – the law cannot act as a deterrent if it is inadequate or not being enforced,” he said.

The government believed it was important to facilitate access to the country’s economic resources by those who had been denied it in the past. The Broad Based Economic Empowerment Act of 2003 (BBEE), is legislation to do just that. “We should be asking ourselves whether it is really possible for an individual, handicapped by the inequities of the past, to compete in the real business world even though the BBEE Act is now part of the law?,” said Prof Gihwala.

Prof Gihwala said that judges prefer to follow precedent instead of taking bold initiative. “Following precedent is safe at a personal level. To do so will elicit no outcry of disapproval and one’s professional reputation is protected. The law needs to evolve and it is the responsibility of the judiciary to see that it happens in an orderly fashion. Courts often take the easy way out, and when the opportunity to be bold and creative presents itself, it is ignored,” he said.

“Perhaps we are expecting too much from the courts. If changes are to be made to the level of protection to the investing public by the law, Parliament must play its proper role. It is desirable for Parliament to be proactive. Those tasked with the responsibility of rewriting our Companies Act should be bold and imaginative. They should remove once and for all those parts of our common law which frustrate the ideals of our Constitution, and in particular those which conflict with the principles of the BBEE Act,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala, the following reforms are necessary:

• establishing a unit that is part of the office of the Registrar of Companies to bolster a whole inspectorate in regard to companies’ affairs;
• companies who are liable to pay a fine or fines, should have the right to take action to recover that fine from those responsible for the conduct;
• and serious transgression of the law should allow for imprisonment only – there should be no room for the payment of fines.
 

Prof Gihwala ended the lecture by saying: “If the opportunity to re-work the Companies Act is not grabbed with both hands, we will witness yet another failure in the law. Even more people will come to believe that the law is stupid and that it has made fools of them. And that would be the worst possible news in our developing democracy, where we are struggling to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails and that every one of us has respect for the law”.

 

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept