Goldberg Attorneys MAY 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 15 costs orders we need to cash in on!!!
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 !!
Generally - the failure by a Commissioner to call upon the parties to present oral evidence means that the parties are unable to give direct testimony and defeats the ability to conduct cross-examination. Further the use of a stated case limits the Commissioner’s ability to decide the matter.
Generally an award is only valid for three (3) years and as such where the Company takes no action you must apply to make the Award an order of Court - the application stays prescription and once it is made an Order then it is valid for thirty (30) years.
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!!🐯
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.
Some of the more interesting cases available on the internet where Goldbergs represented one of the parties:
 In F v Ministser of Safety and Security and Another (Institute for Security Studies, Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa Trust and Trustees of the Women’s Legal Centre as Amici Curiae) the following was stated:
‘ It is now trite that condonation will be granted if it is in the interests of justice to do so, and if there appear to be reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Factors to be considered with regard to the interests of justice include the reason for the delay, and the extent of the prejudice, if any, that was suffered by the other party.’
Mokhwele and Others v Courier Freight Group (JS220/2011)  ZALCJHB 82 (20 March 2014) http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZALCJHB/2014/82.html Objective discrimination allowed.
 The simple fact is that the State Attorney and the Department did not comply with the order of this Court of 17 October 2012. In this regard, Mr Goldberg helpfully referred me to the case of McNally N.O. & others v Codron and Others  ZAWCHC 17, a judgment of 9 March 2012 of Yekiso J. In that judgment, Yekiso J noted (in para 17) that, in terms of High Court Rule 26, any party who fails to deliver a subsequent pleading within the time stated in Rule 25 shall be ipso facto barred.
“If any party fails to deliver any other pleading within the time laid down in these rules or within an extended time allowed in terms thereof, any other party may by notice served upon him require him to deliver such pleadings within five days after the day upon which the notice is delivered. Any party failing to deliver the pleading referred to in the notice within the time therein required or within such period as may be agreed between the parties shall be in default of filing such a pleading and ipso facto barred.”
 Yekiso J goes onto say at paragraph 18:
“It will be noted that a failure to deliver a replication or subsequent pleading, as required in terms of Rule 25 of the Uniform Rules, will result in an automatic barring of a party failing to deliver a replication or subsequent pleading.”
 The learned judge then goes on to find that an exception is in fact a pleading as contemplated in the rules. In this Court, in a number of cases, for example, in Eagleton v You Asked Services, (JS309/05, 18 July 2008), Basson J held that while this Court’s rules do not deal specifically with exceptions, the High Court rules have to be adopted. And Basson J referred in that regard, in paragraph 15, to the principles dealing with exception and the purpose of a statement of claim set out by Waglay J, as he then was, in Harmse v City of Cape Town  24 ILJ 1130 (LC) at paragraphs 6 to 10.
 Very recently on 6 January this year, my brother van Niekerk J gave judgment in the case of Makhanye v South African Airways (JS 265/13), and dealt with an analogous position where an earlier order of this Court granted one party, the applicant in that case, leave to amend his statement of claim within 30 days of the date of the order, failing which the claim would be regarded as dismissed. In that case, as in this one, the party did not comply with the time period set down in an order of Molahlehi J.
Van Niekerk J then goes on to say in paragraphs 8 to 10:
“There is no application for condonation that accompanied the amendment to the statement of claim, and at no stage has the applicant sought condonation from this Court for what amounts to a breach of the order. We are not dealing here with the breach of a regulation or a rule or a directive. The applicant has acted in breach of a court order, thereby placing himself technically in contempt of this Court.
The terms of the order granted by Molahlehi J on 24 July 2013 are clear - if the applicant failed to file the amended statement of claim within the prescribed period of 30 days, his claim would be regarded as being dismissed.
I see no reason, given particularly the absence of any application for condonation or indeed any explanation whatsoever for the late filing of the amended statement of claim to consider that the consequence foreshadowed by Molahlehi J’s order should be any different. On that basis alone, the referral of the applicant’s claim stands to be dismissed.