Yet, there are many more issues that have been identified in the wake of Covid-19 which require a holistic legislative approach to cushion both employers and employees against needless, disruptive and expensive litigation which is bound to arise after the pandemic due to the inadequacy of the existing legal framework.

Some of these issues include whether the layoffs necessitated by a pandemic constitute a redundancy, force majeure or frustration; whether the normal protracted termination process also applies during a pandemic; whether statutory benefits like housing and medical should subsist during unpaid leave; employers’ health and safety obligations while employees are working from home; treatment of statutory deductions during unpaid leave; whether performance and disciplinary processes should be conducted during a pandemic; whether employers are liable for the death of employees whom they place at risk in the line of duty; whether employees who are not sick but on quarantine should be given sick or paid leave, among others.

When the Sakaja Bill states that an employer shall not terminate the contract of an employee during a pandemic, this effectively provides a blanket protection for employees and freezes all manner of terminations including those that had been initiated on disciplinary grounds, poor performance or redundancy.

Instead of categorically and boldly stating that in the event of a pandemic an employer shall be at liberty to require employees to proceed on unpaid leave until the end of the pandemic on such terms as shall be agreed between the parties, it prevaricates and simply provides that employers shall permit their employees to take a leave of absence without pay.

The Bill skirts around the matter by feebly providing that an employer shall not coerce an employee to accept a pay cut.