LRM Labour Law

08/11/2025

If you don't have the facts, argue the law. If you don't have the law, argue the facts. If you neither have the facts nor the law, just argue😀😀

20/06/2022

Applications to stay the enforcement of default arbitration awards

Applications to stay the enforcement of default arbitration awards are regularly referred to the urgent court in the Labour Court in terms of section 145(3) of the LRA. This section, which regulates review applications, provides that the "Labour Court may stay the enforcement of the award pending its decision". As a result the Labour Court is overburdened, and by extension clogged, as a result of these innumerable applications.

In the recent decision of Denel Soc Ltd v NUMSA obo Petersen (J 518/22 Delivered 24 May 2022) Moshoana J, clearly frustrated by the challenges being faced by the Labour Court, lamented this situation. In his judgment he explores in detail some alternate interpretations of the LRA, CCMA Practice Notes and CCMA and Labour Court Rules, in order to assess whether the unreasonable load that has been placed on the Labour Court by these applications can be lessened.

Quote of the week

"[T]his Court takes a view that the mandate of the Labour Court is limited to decisions pending before it and not of other dispute resolution bodies. A view is also taken that default arbitration awards do not deserve to be certified because they are not final in nature. Lastly, a view is taken that the CCMA and the bargaining council are mandated to hear and determine applications seeking to stay enforcement of a default award pending its decision on it. I may point out that should the CCMA or the bargaining council refuse a rescission application, this Court can be approached to exercise its review powers over the default award as well as the ruling refusing to rescind. All of the above views resonates with the provisions of section 1 of the LRA."

Denel Soc Ltd v NUMSA obo Petersen (J 518/22 Delivered 24 May 2022) [para 27]

22/01/2022

In a CCMA award that was handed down on December 22, Narius Moloto was found to have sexually harassed a gender coordinator at the Building Construction Workers’ Union (BCAWU).

22/01/2022

An arbitrator will finally resolve the dispute between suspended armed guard Sheriff Ramaremisa and Bidvest Protea Coin. This after efforts by the National Bargaining Council for the Private Security Sector (NBCPSS) to mediate on the matter failed.

04/01/2022

The national minimum wage looks set to increase by inflation plus one percentage point this year, with minimum pay for domestic workers matching other workers for the first time.

05/11/2021

10/09/2021

02/08/2021

Refusal to sign warnings

There is a common misconception amongst employees that if they refuse to sign a warning, it cannot be validly used against them in subsequent proceedings.

The refusal to sign a warning does not affect it’s validity. In circumstances where an employee refuses to sign a warning, the employer would simply get a witness to confirm that a warning was issued and the employee refused to sign.

An employee who believes a warning was unfairly issued against him / her has a right to either appeal it internally, if the employer has an appeal procedure in place, or refer an unfair labour practice claim either to the CCMA or the Bargaining Council to challenge it’s fairness.

12/06/2021

Join us as we are about to celebrate the grand opening of the new offices of our associates, MB Mabidi Attorneys & conveyancers in Thohoyandou.

19/05/2021

Our service offering includes:

Conducting Labour Relations trainings

Chairing disciplinary, grievance and appeal hearings

Initiating disciplinary hearings

Representing senior employees and executive managers in disciplinary proceedings

Conducting fact finding investigations

04/05/2021

Misrepresentation of qualifications

Over the years, there have been various media reports on high-profile employees who misrepresent qualifications to their employers.

Our Courts seriously frown upon gross dishonesty regarding CV misrepresentation. The body of case law is consistent that this misconduct is serious to warrant dismissal as it renders employment intolerable.

In SA Post Office Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration & others (2011) 32 ILJ 2442 (LAC), the employee had misrepresented that she had a driver’s licence in her application for employment and was dismissed for dishonesty. A CCMA commissioner found her dismissal substantively unfair and reinstated her, with the award having been upheld on review by the Labour Court. But the LAC reversed this court on appeal, with Waglay DJP (as he then was) finding the award unreasonable, inter alia, on this basis at para 34.

“ To place an employee who was guilty of dishonesty back in her position where honesty and integrity are paramount to the ex*****on of duties, is to my mind grossly unreasonable, but more importantly, it cannot be right to reinstate or re-employ a person in a position that was secured by the making of false statements.”

In Department of Home Affairs & another v Ndlovu & others (2014) 35 ILJ 3340 (LAC), the employee had misrepresented in his CV that he had a degree in technology marketing and was dismissed for dishonesty. A bargaining council commissioner upheld the dismissal, with the award having been set aside on review by this court. But the LAC reversed this court on appeal, and restored the commissioner’s award. Dlodlo AJA held:

“The fact that the misrepresentation in the CV might very well not have induced the first respondent's appointment to the post most certainly does not detract from the fact of the first respondent's initial dishonesty. The dishonesty as contained in the CV is ultimately what underpins the substantive fairness of the first respondent's dismissal. Why did the first respondent put in his CV that which is untrue? He knew how to describe the MBA degree which was then unfinished. He could have described the bachelor of technology marketing degree similarly if he found it necessary to mention it at all in his CV.”

In G4S Secure Solutions (SA) (Pty) Ltd v Ruggiero NO & others (2017) 38 ILJ 881 (LAC), the employee failed to disclose a criminal conviction in his application for employment as a security guard and was dismissed for dishonesty (14 years later). A CCMA commissioner found the dismissal substantively unfair and awarded the employee compensation, with the award having been upheld on review by this court. But, again, the LAC reversed this court on appeal and set aside the award, with Savage AJA finding:

“[30] … The false misrepresentation made by the third respondent was blatantly dishonest in circumstances in which the appellant is entitled as an operational imperative to rely on honesty and full disclosure by its potential employees. It induced employment and when discovered was met with an absence of remorse on the part of the third respondent. The fact that a 10 lengthy period had elapsed since the misrepresentation, during which time the third respondent had rendered long service without disciplinary infraction, while a relevant consideration, does not compel a different result. This is so in that the fact that dishonesty has been concealed for an extended period does not in itself negate the seriousness of the misconduct or justify its different treatment. To find differently would send the wrong message.” ..

In conclusion, it is worth noting that any person found to have misrepresented their qualifications or lying about their educational background could be liable for a fine or imprisonment for up to five (5) years.