Lukholo Molefe

Lukholo Molefe heads up Goldberg's correspondent law division, which services over 500 attorneys with the filing of papers and pleadings at the Labour Court, Labour Appeal Court, and Constitutional Court.

Lukholo Molefe is an expert drafter of pleadings. Managing 50 files is a challenging task. Lukholo gives his best every day. Call him now. 011403-0015

_______________________________________________________________________________

The new Labour Court Rules, published on 3 May 2024 and effective from 17 July 2024, introduce significant changes to court processes in South Africa. Here are some key aspects:

 Key Changes

- Dies Non: Specific days are now excluded from time period calculations, providing relief from tight deadlines during periods like the December holiday season.
- Concise Review Applications: Review applications now require only a concise statement of grounds for review, streamlining the process.

Procedural Updates

- Pre-trial Conferences: Parties must convene and attend pre-trial conferences within 15 days of the close of pleadings to narrow down issues and facilitate settlement discussions.

Other Notable Aspects

- Case Management: The court may certify a case as trial-ready or put parties on terms to achieve trial readiness.
- Default Judgment: Applications for default judgment can be made after the expiry of the dies for filing a statement of response.
- Review Applications: Applicants must file a concise statement of grounds for review, and respondents have 10 days to dispatch the record of proceedings and reasons for the decision.

___________________________________________________________________________

A victory in the Appeal Court for Goldberg Attorneys Inc

The Maseko v Woolworths case is a significant labour law judgment in South Africa. Here's a summary:

- Case Background: Lorraine Maseko, a store specialist at Woolworths, was dismissed in 2018 for submitting allegedly fraudulent medical certificates issued by Dr Frempong. Maseko claimed she was genuinely sick and had consulted with the doctor.

- CCMA Ruling: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) found Maseko's dismissal substantively unfair, stating that Woolworths didn't provide sufficient evidence to prove the certificates were fake or that Maseko knew about Dr Frempong's alleged misconduct.

- Labour Appeal Court (LAC) Decision: The LAC upheld the CCMA's decision, emphasising that employers can't simply assume an employee's guilt based on suspicions about a doctor's integrity. The court emphasised that the employer bears the burden of proving the fraudulent nature of a medical certificate.

- Key Takeaways
- Employer's Burden of Proof: Employers must provide concrete evidence to support their claims of misconduct.
- Fair Labour Practices: Employers should avoid rushing to judgment and ensure fair procedures in disciplinary actions.
- Medical Certificate Validity: A medical certificate issued by a registered practitioner is generally considered valid unless proven otherwise.

Andrew Goldberg, Maseko's attorney, praised the judgment, saying it raises the bar for companies to provide evidence of employees fabricating sick notes to justify dismissal. Goldberg noted that the court's decision emphasises the importance of fairness and evidence-based decision-making in employment disputes.

_____________________________________________________________________________

The Labour Appeal Court of South Africa, Johannesburg, delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Potgieter v Samancor Chrome Limited t/a Tubatse Ferrochrome (JA91/22) [2025] ZALAC 15 on March 10, 2025. This case sets a significant precedent regarding prescription and reinstatement orders in employment law.

The case is available here https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZALAC/2025/15.html

Key Aspects of the Judgment
- Prescription and Reinstatement Orders: The court clarified that a debt becomes due and payable when an employee is actually reinstated, not when the reinstatement order is made.
- Interruption of Prescription: The court held that the institution of proceedings can interrupt prescription, even if the proceedings are withdrawn or do not result in a final judgment.
- Contractual Claims: The court distinguished between judgment debts and contractual claims, holding that a claim for arrears in wages is a contractual claim that becomes due and payable upon actual reinstatement.

Impact of the Judgment
- Employee Rights: This judgment provides clarity on when employees can claim arrears in wages following a reinstatement order, ensuring that employees are not unfairly prejudiced by delays in the implementation of reinstatement orders.
- Employer Obligations: Employers must now be aware that prescription periods for contractual claims start running from the date of actual reinstatement, not from the date of the reinstatement order.

Conclusion
The judgment is a significant development in South African employment law, providing clarity on the interplay between prescription and reinstatement orders. It underscores the importance of understanding the nuances of employment law to navigate complex disputes effectively.

____________________________________________________________________________

The Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg, delivered a significant judgment in the case of Mashigo v South African Broadcasting Corporation Soc Ltd (JR2454/19) [2024] ZALCJHB 455.

The court reviewed and set aside an arbitration award that found the dismissal of the applicant, Charles Selogang Mashigo, to be fair.

The case is available here: https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZALCJHB/2024/455.html

Key Aspects of the Judgment

- Hearsay Evidence: The commissioner's reliance on hearsay evidence was improper and constituted a gross irregularity.
- Procedural Fairness: The court found that the SABC failed to follow its own disciplinary procedure by not allowing Mashigo to submit mitigating factors before determining the sanction.
- Review and Setting Aside: The court reviewed and set aside the arbitration award, remitting the dispute to the CCMA for a hearing de novo before another commissioner.

The attorney in this case demonstrated exceptional skill and expertise in:

- Evidence Analysis: Successfully arguing that the commissioner's reliance on hearsay evidence was improper.
- Procedural Awareness: Highlighting the SABC's failure to follow its own disciplinary procedure.
- Advocating for Fairness: Securing a favourable outcome for Mashigo by having the arbitration award reviewed and set aside.