CCMA - questions

[Citizen X]

I may be wrong, but I think that Anthony represented and argued his case so well on behalf of the employee, that the CCMA allowed legal representation.
Yes, the section dealing with representation have been amended at the very least 8 times over the past 7 years. I think sometimes we argue things based on experience, eg(made up example, not true, just for illustration). All the accused I represented were granted bail even though they had no fixed address.

The latin maxim, "audi alteram partem" really holds true, ther are two sides to a story..

Guys, just want to say that I'm a very easy person, "I'm easy like a Sunday morning," so please don't feel offended by the manner in which something I state may come across

[sterne.law@gmail.com]

I am not going to respond specifically, but will set out perhaps with more clarity.

Firstly,I did not state it as legal fact but quite clearly, based on actual events and actual representation of an attorney before the CCMA and other Dispute Resolution Agencies, what is almost always the reality, again based on real and actual experience. I would believe that the practical and real events are indisputable.

To be in perspective, my wife appears mainly for employees, and attends on average 3 arbitrations per week. Last year alone probably close to a hundred arbitrations. ONLY on one occasion was she refused representation, which decsion was overturned on review.
I can also be quite clear, that only on about 5 occassions was it required to submit strong argument. These were all situations where the employee had substantial experience or a degree. The rest of the time it was a fairly easy decision for the Commissioner to make.

The comparitive ability remains the key issue and as submitted earlier the employee is almost always at a disadvantage. The employer is normally a manager, more education than the employee etc,etc and on this basis alone the employee is allowed an attorney. In certain circumstances, again set out previously, the Commisioner is comfortable that the employee needs representation but feels the employer may be disadvantaged by not having an attorney, and adjourns the matter thus allowing the employer to seek counsel.

In terms of SEESA and other employer organizations, there is no doubt that the majority are formulated merely for representation rights by attorneys. This is a problem. There has been some argument that becuase the rules say NO attorneys, that even when as an employers organization member, they are still excluded. For obvious reasons, (an attorney objecting to an attorney would be non-sensical) I have never bothered to explore the argument.

The converse of the employer organization having an attorney, is if the Commissioner should be duty bound to adjourn and allow the employee an opportunity to seek counsel. This often occurs in the Joburg and Durban Labour Court, where the judge adjourns and sends the employee to get legal help. It is made possible as these two courts have a joint project between SASLAW and ProBono.Org whereby lawyers act on a probono basis in labour court matters, where the criteria is met.

[Citizen X]

Anthony, many thanks indeed for the clarification!