EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITIES WHEN HIRING & ONBOARDING

Written by Phumzile Eliya

Within the hairdressing, cosmetology, beauty, and skincare industry, there is a recurring conversation that surfaces far too often. An employer recruits a new employee, difficulties arise within the first few weeks or months, and frustration quickly follows. Inevitably, questions are raised such as: “Why does the National Bargaining Council for the Hairdressing, Cosmetology, Beauty and Skincare Industry not keep a list of problematic employees?” or “Why doesn’t the Employers' Organisation for Hairdressing, Cosmetology and Beauty (EOHCB) warn employers about individuals with a problematic employment history?”

While the frustration is understandable, the expectation itself is fundamentally misplaced.

Operating an establishment in this industry is demanding. A difficult employee can disrupt workplace harmony, damage client relationships, negatively affect productivity, and ultimately cost the business both financially and operationally. However, the notion that a bargaining council or employer organisation should maintain a register of “undesirable” employees is not only impractical but also unlawful, unethical, and contrary to the principles of fair labour practice.

More importantly, this expectation diverts attention away from the real issue. The quality, suitability, and professionalism of your workforce do not begin at the National Bargaining Council for the Hairdressing, Cosmetology, Beauty and Skincare Industry or with the Employers' Organisation for Hairdressing, Cosmetology and Beauty (EOHCB). They begin with the employer, during recruitment, throughout the interview process, in the questions asked, the standards communicated, and the onboarding systems implemented from the very beginning.

This article examines why the responsibility for hiring and onboarding ultimately rests with employers, what South African labour legislation says regarding so-called “blacklisting,” and what practical steps establishments can take to recruit and integrate employees more effectively.

Why a “Problem Employee Register” Cannot Exist

It is important to address this issue directly. The absence of a centralised database containing the names of “problematic” or “undesirable” employees is not a failure within the system. It is a deliberate legal and ethical safeguard.

In terms of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, every individual has the right to equality, dignity, privacy, and fair labour practices. The Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 further protects employees against unfair discrimination, while the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 (POPIA) regulates how personal information may lawfully be collected, processed, stored, and shared.

The sharing of negative employment-related information without proper legal basis, due process, or consent may expose parties to claims of defamation, unfair labour practices, unlawful discrimination, or breaches of privacy legislation. Any organisation maintaining or circulating a “blacklist” of employees would face significant legal exposure, including reputational and financial consequences.

Beyond the legal risks, such a system would be inherently unfair. An employee dismissed by one employer may have been subjected to an unfair process, poor management, inadequate training, or workplace conflict beyond their control. Similarly, an employee who struggled in one environment may perform exceptionally well in another. Labour legislation recognises that individuals must be afforded the opportunity to seek employment without being permanently prejudiced by previous workplace disputes or allegations.

For this reason, the responsibility of determining whether a candidate is suitable for employment rests squarely with the employer. That assessment must take place before an appointment is made, not after workplace issues begin to emerge.

The Gap Between What Employers Expect and What They Recruit

When employers describe a “difficult” employee, the concerns are generally consistent: poor punctuality, dishonesty, attitude problems, conflict with colleagues or clients, poor work ethic, unreliability, or underperformance.

These concerns are legitimate and can have serious operational consequences. However, when recruitment processes are examined more closely, a common pattern frequently emerges.

Many establishments within the hair and beauty industry recruit primarily on technical ability. A candidate performs a demonstration, presents a portfolio, or displays strong practical skills, and the hiring decision is made almost immediately. While technical competence is undeniably important in this industry, it represents only one component of a successful employment relationship.

An employee may possess exceptional technical skill while simultaneously lacking professionalism, accountability, emotional maturity, communication skills, or the ability to function effectively within a team environment. Technical ability and workplace conduct are entirely separate considerations, and both must be properly evaluated during recruitment.

The disconnect between employer expectations and employee performance often stems from three recurring failures:

• Recruitment processes focus on skill but neglect behavioural assessment.

• Employers fail to communicate workplace standards and expectations clearly during interviews.

• Meaningful reference checks are either overlooked or conducted superficially.

This is not about placing blame on employers. The reality is that establishments operate in fast-moving, high-pressure environments where vacancies require urgent attention. A strong candidate can easily appear to be the immediate solution to an operational problem. However, rushed recruitment decisions frequently become significantly more costly in the long term.

Interview for Behaviour — Not Only for Skill

An effective recruitment process does not need to be excessively corporate or overly complicated. What it requires is structure, consistency, and intentionality.

Before conducting interviews, employers should first identify what they genuinely require from the position beyond technical capability. Consider the nature of the establishment itself. Is the environment fast-paced and high-volume, or more boutique and relationship-driven? Does the role require someone highly independent, or someone who integrates well within a collaborative team culture? What professional values are non-negotiable within the business?

Once these factors are clearly defined, interview questions should focus on behaviour rather than hypothetical situations.

Behavioural interviewing requires candidates to explain how they handled real situations in previous employment, rather than how they believe they would respond theoretically. Past behaviour remains one of the strongest indicators of future conduct.

Examples of effective behavioural questions within this industry include:

• Describe a situation where a client was unhappy with a service you provided. How did you handle it?

• Tell us about a time you experienced conflict with a colleague or manager and how the matter was resolved.

• Explain how you manage pressure during busy trading periods.

• Describe a workplace mistake you made and how you addressed it.

• What does professionalism and punctuality mean to you within an establishment environment?

Equally important is observing how candidates respond. Do they demonstrate accountability and self-awareness, or do they portray themselves as victims in every workplace scenario? Do they speak respectfully about previous employers and colleagues, or is every former workplace described negatively? These behavioural indicators often reveal more than technical demonstrations ever will.

Conducting reference checks that provide meaningful information

Reference checks remain one of the most underutilised recruitment tools within the industry. Even when they are conducted, they are often approached incorrectly.

A vague question such as “Was this employee good?” rarely produces useful information. Most former employers respond cautiously to avoid potential legal complications, which results in generic and non-committal feedback.

Reference checks become significantly more valuable when employers ask specific, factual, role-related questions.

Useful questions may include:

• Can you confirm the candidate’s period of employment and position held?

• What type of establishment did they work in?

• How would you describe their reliability and punctuality?

• Were there any concerns relating to professionalism or conduct?

• Would you re-employ this individual?

Often, the tone and confidence of the response provide as much insight as the actual answer itself. A direct and enthusiastic recommendation communicates something meaningful. Hesitation or vague responses may equally indicate underlying concerns without exposing the former employer to legal risk.

Employers should also ensure that references are legitimate and professionally relevant. References supplied by personal friends or unrelated individuals provide little value. Furthermore, where a candidate is unable to provide any credible industry-related references, this should prompt further discussion during the recruitment process.

Onboarding: The Critical Step Most Establishments Neglect

Recruitment is only the beginning. Appointing the correct individual means very little if the establishment fails to integrate that employee properly into the business.

Unfortunately, onboarding remains one of the most neglected processes within many small and medium establishments. In many cases, onboarding consists merely of introducing the employee to the premises before expecting them to “watch and learn.”

This approach creates avoidable problems.

Employees who are not properly introduced to workplace rules, standards, systems, and expectations cannot reasonably be expected to meet them consistently. In the absence of proper guidance, employees naturally revert to habits and practices developed in previous workplaces, which may not align with the standards of the current establishment.

A structured onboarding process should, at a minimum, include the following:

• A clear written employment contract outlining remuneration, hours of work, commission structures, leave, and job responsibilities.

• A formal induction into the establishment’s culture, professional standards, and client service expectations.

• Clear communication regarding workplace rules, including punctuality, dress code, cellphone usage, hygiene standards, and client interaction protocols.

• Introduction to team structures, reporting lines, and operational procedures.

• A clearly defined probationary period explained as a mutual evaluation process.

• Scheduled follow-up discussions during the first month of employment to address concerns proactively.

When implemented correctly, onboarding significantly reduces misunderstandings, improves accountability, and creates consistency within the workplace.

Understanding Probation Properly

Probation remains one of the most valuable tools available to employers when used correctly.

In terms of Schedule 8 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal, probationary periods are intended to allow employers an opportunity to assess an employee’s suitability for permanent employment while simultaneously allowing employees to evaluate the workplace environment.

However, probation does not remove an employer’s obligation to act fairly.

Where performance or conduct concerns arise during probation, employers are still required to:

• Raise concerns timeously;

• Provide guidance, instruction, or counselling where appropriate;

• Allow reasonable opportunity for improvement; and

• Follow a fair process before termination is considered.

Probation should therefore be viewed as a structured risk-management mechanism, not as a licence to dismiss employees arbitrarily.

When Problems Still Arise

Even with strong recruitment procedures, thorough reference checks, and structured onboarding systems, workplace difficulties may still occur. No recruitment process is infallible. Individuals may present themselves exceptionally well during interviews and behave entirely differently once employed.

What employers must avoid, however, is reacting emotionally or abandoning procedural fairness when problems emerge.

Dismissing employees informally because they are perceived as “not fitting in” or because management feels frustrated — without warnings, documentation, investigation, or procedural fairness — exposes establishments to significant legal risk at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) and bargaining council level.

The role of the Employers' Organisation for Hairdressing, Cosmetology and Beauty (EOHCB) is to support employers through lawful labour processes and provide guidance on compliance and fair procedure. It is not the function of the organisation to absorb the consequences of rushed or poorly managed recruitment decisions.

The most effective employers within this industry recognise that employment relationships require ongoing management, communication, accountability, and early intervention when concerns arise.

Raise the Standard Before the Appointment Is Made

In conclusion, the Employers' Organisation for Hairdressing, Cosmetology and Beauty (EOHCB) and the National Bargaining Council for the Hairdressing, Cosmetology, Beauty and Skincare Industry exist to promote compliance, fairness, and stability within the industry.

What they cannot and should not do is maintain a register of individuals deemed undesirable by previous employers. Such a system would create serious legal, ethical, and constitutional concerns.

What the EOHCB can do is encourage employers to approach recruitment and onboarding as professional business functions rather than administrative formalities.

In many cases, disputes involving “difficult employees” can be traced back to the recruitment stage, a question that was never asked, an expectation that was never communicated, or a reference that was never verified.

Strong establishments are built long before an employee’s first day of work.

Raise the standard at the recruitment stage. Interview intentionally. Conduct meaningful reference checks. Implement structured onboarding. Communicate expectations clearly from the outset.

The quality, professionalism, and culture of your establishment will ultimately reflect the standards you are willing to enforce from the very beginning.