All Things Labour Law

04/10/2026

“dereliction of duty,” is something that one can be charged with, it mean that you as an employee gives extremely poor service or outcomes and that you’re grossly incompetent.

But the employer must show that they did provide that person with the necessary support in the form of providing training,counseling etc. otherwise this form of incapacity would be presumed to be unfair.

13/09/2026

Did you know that the CCMA doesn’t have jurisdiction to entertain disputes about “breach of contract “ and must be referred to the High Court for adjudication, however it’s worth noting that the Labour Court has equivalent and concurrent Jurisdiction to the High Court

09/09/2026

💥DISPELLING💥 SOME MYTHS (UIF)

Some employees request for employers not to deduct UIF because they are getting pensions, this is an unlawful request employers MUST deduct uif from the day you start to work?

I’m a casual employee I cannot get uif !
That is completely false the Dept. of Labour draw no distinction between casual/temporary or permanent workers if you render a service for remuneration the only requirement is that you work more then 24 hours PM,
So UIF must be deducted and you can draw UIF when your services has been terminated.

I can’t draw UIF because I’m getting SASSA pension ! again that is completely false the 2 departments have nothing to do with each other and is mutual exclusive from each other.

I can’t draw UIF because my employer never deducted or never paid my UIF over ! FALSE
you can still draw uif even though nothing was deducted or paid over in terms of UIF Contributions Act it is the employers responsibility and they will have pay your portion also at a later stage but they will pay You so long provided they fill in the necessary UIF Documentation.
CONSIDER THE MYTHS BUSTED !!💥

20/08/2026

The Constitution of the republic of South Africa 🇿🇦 is subject to the provision of the Bill of Rights. Section 9(3) & (4) of the Bill of Rights provides that no person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds including race,gender,pregnancy, marital status,ethnic or social origin, sexual orientation,religion, disability,culture or languages

18/08/2026

INSUBORDINATION, could be a disciplinary charge against you for not following a lawful or reasonable instruction from your superior ( supervisor, team leader, manager etc.)

11/08/2026

LAW OF EVIDENCE is the most crucial part of of any disciplinary hearing or more importantly in arbitration proceedings, so be mindful of 3 fundamental principles when presenting your case. RELIABILITY, CREDIBILITY, PROBABILITY of evidence.

For me when doing a case it’s not a about the Facts nor the Truth, it’s about what you can PROVE, if you follow this page regularly, we guarantee successful outcomes.
WITH US YOU ALWAYS GOING TO LEARN 📚

09/08/2026

How Does The Case Of Nando’s Scottsville V CCMA And Others (D06/2019) Impact Dismissals For “Petty Theft”?

Dismissal for petty theft has always been a severe debatable issue in the labour field.

In the case of Nando’s Scottsville v CCMA and Others (D06/2019), an employee was dismissed for eating two individual slices of carrots from the bain-marie. The employee was charged with the following:

‘Unauthorised Consumption of Company Stock – in that they alleged that the employee was dishonest by consuming company stock being vegetables whilst on duty on the 08/04/2018 at Nando’s Scotville.’

The employee indicated during the disciplinary hearing and at the subsequent hearing at the CCMA that as a “front griller”, as he just “tested” the cooked carrots as they appeared to be frozen.

The employee further indicated that they would test the porridge that was cooked on a daily basis. The initiator, in his case, according to the employee, tastes the products of Nando’s, more, in particular, the porridge and rice.

The CCMA Commissioner found this was substantively unfair as there were no inherent dishonesty and ordered his reinstatement.

The Labour Court confirmed the same. The Judge stated that whilst he ate the carrots, he broke a rule, but he simply tasted them to determine whether they were suitable to be served. The employee did not consider his actions to break the law, as it appears he understood that it was for the unauthorised consumption of food items for personal pleasure.

25/07/2026

So the this interim interdict Judgment on the president handed down says that the presidents Reputational harm is more important that accountability to implement separation of Powers (a Constitution imperative), Parliament, holding the Executive accountable ⚖️, But no ! Ia High Court a lower Court comes to this travesty of Justice, to arrived to this reprehensible conclusion

20/07/2026

18/07/2026

Department of Correctional Services employees who went to court after the department discriminated against them because they are Coloured.
In 2012, the department refused to promote them despite the fact that they were the best candidates for the job. They took the department to court and 4 years later, the constitutional court ruled that the department’s decision not to appoint or promote them constituted unfair discrimination and unfair labour practices. This will have a significant positive impact on all brown people.
It has been a long road for them, but they fought against discrimination and they won.