6 minute read
SANITISING VS DISINFECTING VS STERILISING
from Spotong Issue 38
by 3S Media
DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SANITISER AND A DISINFECTANT?
By now everyone should be familiar with using sanitising sprays on themselves as well as disinfecting products for surfaces, but how many people are mistakenly using the same product for both jobs?
Advertisement
According to Burt Rodrigues, CEO of Biodx, “The terminologies sanitiser, disinfectant and antiseptic, were just words to most people before Covid hit. People knew the words but perhaps didn’t understand the clear differences between them all.”
Today it’s become vital that people understand that the sanitiser you use on your hands and body will not work the same way on surfaces. Because most sanitisers typically have a large component of alcohol (70% recommended by the WHO) these will quickly evaporate when sprayed on a surface, which renders it useless seconds later. BUT a registered disinfectant, which should never be sprayed on skin, will be effective on surfaces for a lot longer than any sanitising spray.
“It’s vital that the public be educated on these differences, which is why the CDC and local campaigns put out this information around the properties of an ideal disinfectant. There’s no such thing as being a little bit effective when dealing with destroying viruses such as Covid-19. Each product you choose must work to a 100% of what it says it does and only used where recommended,” explains Rodrigues.
Sanitising is a process of reducing (not killing/destroying), the occurrence and growth of bacteria, viruses and fungi. Sanitising is better than cleaning alone but the reduction of pathogen populations on environmental surfaces is exponentially better when you disinfect. Since sanitising does not make 100% anti-viral claims, sanitising offers less confidence of destroying the flu or other viruses commonly found on surfaces.
- Burt Rodrigues, CEO of Biodx
Disinfection is the process of reducing (killing/destroying inactivating) harmful and objectionable bacteria, viruses and other pathogenic microorganisms by various agents such as chemicals (biocides, virucides), heat, ultraviolet light, ultrasonic waves, or radiation. It includes ensuring a food contact surface or utensil does not contain microorganisms at a level that would allow the transmission of infectious disease or compromise food safety.
Antiseptics are antimicrobial substances that are applied to living tissue/skin to reduce the possibility of infection, sepsis or putrefaction. Antiseptics are generally distinguished from disinfectants, which destroy pathogens found on inanimate objects. Antibacterials include antiseptics that have the proven ability to act against bacteria.
CAN EMPLOYEES BE DISMISSED FOR NOT OBSERVING WORKPLACE COVID-19 PROTOCOLS?
By: Nivaani Moodley & Shane Johnson from Webber Wentzel
Two recent decisions from labour dispute resolution forums have dealt with the disciplining of employees for failing to observe Covid-19 protocols – one dismissal was found to be fair, while the other unfair. Understanding the circumstances and differentiators of these two decisions is important for employers.
Employee dismissed for failing to self-isolate while waiting for Covid-19 test result
In a recent decision*, the National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight Logistics Industry (NBCRFLI) upheld the dismissal of an employee who failed to observe Covid-19 protocols.
The employee was employed by the employer as a truck driver. On 3 August 2020, the employee arrived at work claiming to be suffering from headaches. The employer advised the employee to consult a medical doctor. The employee was booked off from work from 4 to 6 August 2020. According to the medical certificate, the employee was waiting for a Covid-19 test result. The employee nevertheless reported to work on 6 August 2020 and handed in a brown envelope which contained two notes – a medical certificate and note from the clinic confirming that the employee was awaiting a Covid-19 test result. The employee was a shop steward and he reported to work as he was due to represent a fellow employee in a disciplinary hearing scheduled for the same day. On 7 August 2020, the employee received a positive Covid-19 test result and he informed the employer accordingly.
The employee had previously self-isolated after he came into contact with someone who had tested positive for Covid-19. The employee was therefore aware of the isolation protocol. The employee was charged with gross misconduct and gross negligence. After attending a disciplinary hearing, the employee was dismissed. The employee referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the NBCRFLI. The NBCRFLI found that the employee was aware of the correct protocol to follow. Given that the employee had previously isolated himself after being exposed to someone who had tested positive for Covid-19, he was aware that he could only return to work (or de-isolate) once he was aware that he was no longer a risk. The misconduct was serious in nature as his conduct wilfully endangered the safety of others in the workplace. The NBCRFLI ultimately upheld the employee’s dismissal.
In a recent decision**, the Metal Engineering Industries Bargaining Council (MEIBC) found the dismissal of an employee for failing to wear a mask in the workplace to be substantively unfair.
The employee was employed as a semi-skilled rigger. On 3 August 2020, the employee, while speaking on his mobile phone, lowered his face mask below his chin in order for the party on the other side to hear him. The employee’s manager witnessed this. Following a disciplinary hearing, the employee was issued with a written warning and placed on suspension. On 7 August 2020, a similar incident occurred. The employee, while speaking to a security guard at the workplace, lowered his face mask. The employee’s manager witnessed this once again. Following a disciplinary hearing, the employee was dismissed. The employee referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the MEIBC. The employee argued that he was aware that mask-wearing was mandatory in the workplace and that he only removed his mask as the security guard could not understand what he was saying. The employee further argued that the employer did not inform employees of the consequences of not wearing a mask and that if they failed to wear a mask, disciplinary action would be taken. The MEIBC found that the purpose of discipline is to correct and rehabilitate employees. It is not meant to be punitive in nature. The MEIBC agreed that failure to wear a mask is risky behaviour and that there are various debates and confusion around mask-wearing. In the circumstances of this case, the MEIBC found that dismissal was too harsh and that it was a “punitive knee-jerk reaction” by the employer. The employee’s behaviour could have been corrected by means of counselling and education. The employer should have considered alternatives to dismissal. The MEIBC ultimately found the dismissal to be substantively unfair and ordered that the employee be reinstated.
* DETAWU obo Jacobs v Quality Express [2021] 5 BALR 453 (NBCRFLI)
** NUMSA obo Manyike v Wenzane Consulting and Construction [2021] 5 BALR 479 (MEIBC)
