Skip to main content

Article 15/2022

Psychometric testing is now used by over 80% of the Fortune 500 companies in the USA for selection.  Psychometric testing is now used by over 75% of the Times Top 100 companies in the UK for selection.

In Pratten v Afrisun KZN (Pty) Ltd, the labour court recently held the viewpoint that the employer is entitled to use psychometric tests in order to determine behavioural competencies attached to jobs. 

On what evidence did the labour court in the Pratten matter adopt the aforesaid approach?

_____________________________________

  1. A major reason for using psychometric tests to aid selection decisions is that they provide information that cannot be obtained easily in other ways.
  2. If such tests are not used, what we know about an applicant is limited to the information that can be gleaned from an application form, CV, interview and references.
  3. If we wish to gain information about a person’s specific aptitudes and abilities, their personality, attitudes and values, then we have little option but to use psychometric tests.
  4. Psychometric tests add a degree of reliability, validity and standardisation to the selection procedure that is impossible to achieve in other ways – how they do this is best addressed by examining the limitations of the information obtained through interviews, application forms, etc.
  5. Interviews – they are shown to be a very unreliable way to judge a person’s character, because, in essence, it is an unstandardized assessment procedure;  It provides no baseline against which to contrast an interviewee’s differing performance – in addition, it is likely that different interviewers may come to radically different conclusions about the same applicant;  Applicants will also respond differently to different interviewers, quite often saying very different things to them;  What one applicant might say will be interpreted quite differently from one interviewer to the other.
  6. Application forms or CVs – same or similar limitations as set out above exist on the range and usefulness of the information gleaned from these sources.
  7. Work experience and qualifications – while these may be pre-requirements for certain occupations, they are not in themselves determining factors whether a person is likely to perform well or badly; Also, not all applicants had the same opportunities to gain work experience and qualifications.
  8. Academic achievements – this criterion is not always a good predictor of ability or future success and, in any case, not all applicants have had equal opportunities in achieving academic goals.

Evidence presented during the trial identified the following further advantages of utilising psychometric tests over the aforementioned above forms of assessment:

  1. the results can be represented numerically, making it easier to both compare applicants with each other and with pre-defined groups;
  2. they effectively eliminate gender, age, ethnic origin and language differences;
  3. they not only prove objectively a person’s ability but they also assess the person’s potential (and not just achievements to date).
July 20, 2026

Precautionary suspensions

In the public sector, the Senior Management Service Handbook (SMS Handbook) directly addresses precautionary suspensions and the 60-day time limit.

Clause 2.7(2)(c) of the SMS Handbook provides that ‘If a member is suspended or transferred as a precautionary measure, the employer must hold a disciplinary hearing within 60 days. The chair of the hearing must then decide on any further postponement.’

Regulation 6 of the Local Government: Disciplinary Regulations Senior Managers, 2010 (Regulations) provides for the precautionary suspension of senior municipal employees and Regulation 6(6)(a) provides: ‘If a senior is suspended, a disciplinary hearing must commence within three months after the date of suspension, failing which the suspension will automatically lapse.’

What are the principles governing a determination of the question as to whether or not a senior municipal employee’s suspension automatically lapses in terms of the aforesaid Regulation 6(6)(a)?

Obviously, the answers to the aforesaid question are very relevant in the private sector where, firstly, a collective agreement regulates a similar process or, alternatively, such contractual rights have been created between the parties, to be enforced in terms of s77(3) of the BCEA.

July 13, 2026

In the previous article, we dealt with the consequences of a plant level collective agreement with a definite beginning and end date. We indicated to you that, in line with s23(2) of the LRA, and an analysis of the relevant case law, that, once such a collective agreement reaches its expiry date, it expires and is no longer of any force or effect. In this article, we deal with the scenario where a plant level collective agreement is concluded for an indefinite period and the employer gave notice to terminate same.

What are the consequences when a party to a plant level collective agreement, concluded for an indefinite time period, gives notice to terminate such collective agreement?

July 6, 2026

In terms of s23(2), a collective agreement binds, for the whole period of the collective agreement, every person so bound in terms of s23(1)(c) (the members of a registered trade union and the employers who are members of a registered employers’ organisation who are a party to the collective agreement, if the collective agreement regulates the terms and conditions of employment, or the conduct of the employers and employees) who was a member at the time it became binding, or who becomes a member after it became binding (irrespective of whether or not that person continues to be a member of such trade union or employers’ organisation for the duration of the collective agreement).

What is the relevant case law development as to a plant level collective agreement that has an expiry date, i e does such collective agreement continue to be of force and effect after such expiry date?