Goldberg Attorneys AUGUST 2019 Labour Law Attorneys - Johannesburg Braamfontein Gauteng - correspondent work at Labour Court and Constitutional Court, CCMA and bargaining councils we do it all. Your employment specialists and attorneys at the Labour Court Braamfontein! Contact us on 0114030015...0832607530 (Andrew) email email@example.com - your correspondent attorneys at the Labour Court. Goldberg Attorneys (lawyers) is an easy to find law firm. Employees and Employers both welcome. Offices are in the same building as the Labour Court Braamfontein Johannesburg Gauteng = Arbour Square Building!!.
We are the best labour attorneys / labour lawyers. If anyone can win your case it is us! Do not settle for less than the best! Goldberg Attorneys have an impeccable record having won most of their cases!! Presently we have 10 costs orders we need to cash in on!!!
We can represent you at Arbitration for as little as R4000 / full day ask us how!
Read Acting Judge Goldberg's Judgment at http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZALCJHB/2017/390.html
AND his latest Judgment at http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZALCJHB/2018/48.rtf
We are very busy handling the thousands of cases that are referred to us on a monthly basis and as such should you not get through please pop us an email or call us on the alternative number 0113395102. We want your case!!
Do you have an Arbitration Award in your favour - if so we can help you enforce it wherever you are be it Mphumalanga, North West or KZN or even the Cape - we work out of the Johannesburg, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Durban Labour Courts.
Let Andrew Goldberg who has acted as a Judge of the Labour Court handle your matter!
Watch Mr. Goldberg on TV dealing with Labour Issues.
See link for the episode below:
We are now over 7 years old having celebrated our 7th year anniversary last month still going strong - no itch !!!
We do CORRESPONDENT work at less 1/3 - call Andrew on 0113395102.
We do filing of cases at the Constitutional Court - Remember you need 25 copies!
Goldbergs have had over 60 cases reported on the internet !!
In the recent case of Mashaba v Citibank Snyman JA (delivered 29 May 2019) had to consider an application for variation of a Court Order which set out that the date of reinstatement of the employee was to be a later date than that in the award. The Judge considered the difference between reinstatement (restoration of the status quo ante) and reemployment (can be conditional) and found that the previous Judge was just reasserting the Award and that the reinstatement order contained therein stood. The Judge further set out that the payment of salaries from the date of the reinstatement set out in the award to the date of actual reinstatement was a contractual claim. I quote the judgment:
 In Coca Cola Sabco (Pty) Ltd v Van Wyk the Court similarly said: ‘Therefore if the employee, after the reinstatement order and during the time that the employer exercises its review and appeal remedies to exhaustion, tenders his/her labour he/she does so in terms of the employment contract. He/she is therefore entitled to payment in terms of the contract of employment. The claim is therefore a contractual one, wherein the employee would have to set out sufficient facts to justify the right or entitlement to judicial redress. The employee would inter alia have to prove that the contract of employment is extant; that he/she tendered his/her labour in terms thereof; and that the employer refuses or is unwilling to pay him/her in terms of that contract. The employer on the other hand would have all the contractual defences at his/her disposal.’
Read Acting Judge Goldberg's Judgment at http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZALCJHB/2017/390.html Extracts from the Judgment:
“ … the applicant’s review application is accordingly deemed to have been withdrawn in that he failed to file the record on review within sixty (60) days from the date he was notified by the Registrar in terms rule 7A (5) that the record had been received by the Court and that it may be uplifted. Further the applicant was meant to apply to reinstate his review application but he only seeks condonation in this regard. The reasons given for the lateness here is set out as the withdrawal of the applicant’s previous attorneys and the mistaken belief by the applicant and the applicant’s present attorneys that the previous attorneys had complied with rules 7A (6) and (8).
 In the Labour Court case between Samuels v Old Mutual Bank [(DA30/15)  ZALAC 10] Tlaletsi DJP held the following with regard to the retrieval of a file from archives:
“ In essence, an application for the retrieval of a file from the archives is a form of an application for condonation for failure to comply with the Court Rules, timeframes and directives. Showing good cause demands that the application be bona fide; that the Applicant provide a reasonable explanation which covers the entire period of the default; and show that he/she has reasonable prospects of success in the main application, and lastly, that it is in the interest of justice to grant the order. It has to be noted that it is not a requirement that the Applicant must deal fully with the merits of the dispute to establish reasonable prospects of success. It is sufficient to set out facts which, if established would result in his/her success. In the end, the decision to grant or refuse condonation is a discretion to be exercised by the court hearing the application which must be judiciously exercised.”
" Whereas the applicant sought to apply for condonation for the late filing of the record in a separate application it is clear from what is set out above that he should have also sought to apply for the Court file to be retrieved from archives and dealt specifically with the issue of good cause. It is my firm belief that without such an application and without dealing with such issue that the applicant’s review application remains withdrawn. Further such application for condonation is not paginated separately; same comes belatedly, and no condonation is sought for such further lateness (the late filing of such application itself)."
We received this great email:
"Dear Mr Goldberg,
I refer to the above judgment. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your judgment!
Its style and content inspired me to read on and learn.
I especially appreciated the manner in which you referred to authorities.
In the final analysis the manner in which you administered the case gave me confidence in the justice system.
Thank you for this contribution to South Africa’s labour law jurisprudence.
BBA (TSiBA), PGDM (UCT)
Watch Mr Goldberg on SABC Live speaking with Cameron Morajane of the CCMA and Paul Benjamin on the New Amendments to the LRA
attorneys.co.za lawyers.co.za findanattorney.co.za all the best for 2015 !!
GOLDBERG ATTORNEYS BEST LAWYER LABOUR LAW
Goldberg Attorneys is a Boutique law firm specialising in Labour Law and in particular in Labour Court matters - Labour Court referrals, drafting of pleadings including complex review applications, rescissions, exceptions, opinions, heads of argument, review applications, urgent applications; joinders / legal representation; Opposing review applications on a minimal fee basis; Contempt applications, Drafting Statements of Claim concerning collective retrenchments, strikes and discrimination. Judge’s directives on retrenchments, strikes and racism. drafting bill of costs and attending taxation, arbitrations, Labour Appeal Court - Appeals, submissions, heads of arguments and arguing before Court. We also do CCMA arbitrations and disciplinary hearings as well as human resources policies and industrial relations.
Let us do the work and you get the money pouring in!
Goldberg Attorneys is a labour law boutique firm conveniently situated in the same building that houses the LABOUR COURT, namely Arbor Square headed up by 🎓 Mr Andrew Goldberg (14 years' experience in Labour Law).
I LOVE 😍 what I do - you'll find me in COURT.
CONTACT US NOW!!!!!!! WE WILL WIN YOUR CASE!!!!!!!😀
We now host disciplinary hearings at our offices in Braamfontein with an appointed independent chairperson, interpreter, and recording system. Please book in advance with Keegan to secure a date and time.
Mr Goldberg, the owner, has the most appearances and reported cases of any single Labour Attorney in the last four years. Mr Goldberg is a well-spoken, trustworthy, confident individual and runs cases from start to finish including urgent interdicts and complex matters all by himself. Mr Goldberg is also a well-known and respected attorney at the Labour Court with over 800 appearances at Labour Court and 10 at Labour Appeal Court.
We are here to service you!!🐯
The new CCMA Rules came into effect on 1 January 2019. The main amendments are:
In terms of rule 11, the CCMA must give the parties at least 7 days’ notice of a conciliation (as opposed to 14 days) in relation to strikes, lockouts and major retrenchments. The 14-day notice rule continues to apply in respect of other disputes. A shorter notice period will be allowed if the parties agree to a shorter period or if reasonable circumstances require it.
Rule 14A now incorporates section 135(2A) of the Labour Relation Act, 66 1995 (the LRA) and provides for an extension of the conciliation period.
Rule 20 has been amended to make pre-arbitration conferences compulsory 14 days before the arbitration if both parties are represented by a trade union, employer’s organisation, legal practitioner or candidate attorney; both parties agree to hold a pre-trial conference; or the parties are directed to do so by the CCMA. If the pre-arbitration conference is not held, the commissioner may decide to continue with the arbitration but may consider awarding costs for the non-compliance.
In terms of rule 24 a conciliation or arbitration can now be held in the region where the dispute arose or the region where the employer’s principal place of business is located.
Candidate attorneys have specifically been included in rule 25 as being able to represent parties in arbitrations. This amended rule also provides that a commissioner may, on application in terms of Rule 31, rule that a person not contemplated in Rule 25(1) may represent a party at the arbitration after considering various factors. Legal representatives are also not allowed to represent parties in the facilitation of large-scale retrenchments.
The amended version of rule 29 requires parties to request disclosure of documents/evidence not less than 14 days prior to the date of hearing and the request must be answered within 5 days. The parties can however agree on a later disclosure and a commissioner may still rule that relevant documents/evidence be disclosed.
In terms of rule 31A parties can apply for picketing rules or ask for the determination of disputes relating thereto and such applications must now be set down within 2 days of receipt of the application, unless the parties agree otherwise.
Section 73A of the LRA came into effect on 1 January 2019 and provides that employees earning below the threshold of R 205 433.30 per annum may now refer disputes to the CCMA relating to employers’ failure to pay any amounts owing to that employee in terms of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, 75 of 1997 or the National Minimum Wage Act, 2018, contracts of employment, a sectoral determination or a collective agreement. Employees who fall above the threshold can approach the Labour Court, High Court, Magistrates Court or Small Claims Court depending on the size of the claim. Previously employees had to wait for the Department of Labour to approach the Labour Court or sue their employers in the normal course.
Given the above amendment to the LRA, a new rule 31B has been added to the CCMA Rules in relation to what should be included in an application for an arbitration award in respect of a compliance order or written undertaking. The process regarding affidavits to be filed and the hearing that could follow are also included in this rule.
Rule 37 has been amended to provide for how a subpoena has to be served at least 7 days before the arbitration hearing.
Rule 40 deals with the certification and enforcement of arbitration awards and has been amended to explain that the amount of the award, costs, an arbitration fee, interest on the amount awarded and the sheriff’s costs can be enforced through execution by the Sheriff.
Rule 40A provides that if a commissioner awards arbitration fees in respect of a procedurally unfair dismissal, the fee must be paid by the employer to the CCMA within 14 days.
Reported cases with the relevant internet site hyperlink where available:
New Reported case hot off the press - Maye Serobe v Lewusa obo Members J2377/12 Concerning the possibility of a review/setting aside a settlement agreement - alleged that the agent lacked mandate to conclude the settlement agreement and/or that he was coerced/forced, the actions of the agent, powers of agent to bind the Principal/Company. Phone us on 0114030015 or 0832607530 (Andrew) for a copy of this groundbreaking judgment of Rafelatane AJ.