The Definitive Guide For Attorneys In South Africa

Please mention when contacting me

< Back

Asandiswa (Asa) Ntanjana

Areas Of Practice:
Arbitration, Employment Equity, Employment Law, Labour Law
Cell Number:
+27 (0)11 403 0016
Email address:
Candidate Attorney
Years of Practice:
86 Juta Street, Ground Floor, Arbour Square, Building Braamfontein (Labour Court Building)
Gauteng / Johannesburg
Johannesburg Central
Postal Address:
P. O. Box 522519, Saxonwold, 2131, 2132

September 2021 - Braamfontein, Johannesburg, Employment, Labour Law

Asandiswa Ntanjana is a candidate attorney at Goldberg Attorneys Inc. Asa, as she is better known, is a quick learner and has her eyes on the horizon, but her feet are still well planted on the ground.  Call her now on 0114030015. 0766160089 You can follow her on Linkedin @


I am Asa; I spent the past six years developing my client service & research skills as I worked for two media monitoring companies. I was promoted within my first year of working in the industry. I also have a track record of receiving awards for holding a top performer position in terms of meeting daily targets. 
I have good legal drafting skills, a strong work ethic; I do whatever it takes to deliver when I commit to a deadline. I also have strong written and oral communication skills, progressive problem-solving skills, and great interpersonal skills, which will enable me to gain and retain clients. I believe my experience in the client service industry and my experience as a student council at the Wits Law Clinic have prepared me for any high-pressure, fast-paced environment as I thrived in such intellectually challenging positions. 

I am academically strong with a 78% overall mark average at Law School for the mid-2020 academic year. I was among eleven Wits University law students awarded bursaries for outstanding academic performance in our final year independent research paper. I also hold a BA degree in Communications and Journalism.

Recent case law - Dismissed for refusing to remove a hairpin!!

What next? Read the facts below, and you decide whether the dismissal was fair? Both the CCMA and the Labour Court found the dismissal fair !!!

A cashier at Pick 'n Pay steadfastly refused to remove a light blue hairpin in contravention of a dress code that requires hairpins to be navy blue or black.
She was charged with insubordination, and when found guilty, she was dismissed.

In the recent case of Xolelwa Ntantiso v Ivy Moon 114 (Pty) Ltd T/A Pick ‘n Pay Brackenfell Labour Court Case no: C 527/2018 - Judgment delivered on 13 November 2020.

"The facts showed that the employee was dismissed because her conduct constituted several serious instances of misconduct:

  • She repeatedly refused to give effect to a fair, valid and reasonable instruction;
  • She deliberately and persistently continued to challenge the authority of her supervisor in full view of other staff and customers in the store;
  • She refused to remove her hairpin when instructed by the store manager while they were in his office;
  • She knew what the dress code policy was;
  • In effect, she simply did not like the rule governing the colour of hairpins in terms of the dress code policy;
  • She intentionally undermined company discipline;
  • She already had a written warning for previous insolence towards another manager;

The employer could not be expected to tolerate her serious and ongoing defiance of the authority of both her supervisor and the store manager.
In the end, it wasn’t about the wrong colour hairpin, but rather what happened after she was told to remove it. It was at this point that she dug her heels in and refused."

(Dr Hilda Grobler)  

Xolelwa Ntantiso v CCMA and Others Case no: C 527/2018 (13 November 2020) per Lagrange J.
Read the Labour Court judgment here

I have quoted the most important parts of the Judgment below:

 "[3] In brief, the employer had a policy governing the personal appearance of
staff, though the applicant argued she was not aware of it. One aspect of
the policy was that hair accessories had to be navy blue or black. On the
day in question, the applicant was wearing a light blue hairclip.

[4] Her supervisor noticed this and asked her to remove it, but she refused,
pointing out another staff member whose hairpin did not comply with the
policy. The supervisor, Ms L Jacobs (‘Jacobs’), told the other staff member
to remove her hairpin too, which the latter did. However, the applicant still
refused to remove hers. 

[28] The arbitrator specifically mentioned the fact that the applicant had
dependents in concluding her award. It is clear from this and other
references in the award that she was fully aware of the applicant’s situation.
What clearly outweighed this, in the arbitrator’s mind, was the fact that the
applicant remained obstinate in her belief that she was entitled to question
the right of her supervisor to give her such an instruction and that she had
a defiant attitude towards her manager, which she still maintained. It was
plainly the seriousness of her defiance and the fact that she remained
convinced that she was entitled to behave the way she did that persuaded
the arbitrator that dismissal was an appropriate sanction.

[29] The court on review does not decide if it would have made the same
decision as the arbitrator, but simply whether an arbitrator could reasonably
have reached the findings that are contained in the award, on the evidence
that was before the arbitrator."



English, Sotho, Xhosa, Zulu