By Ivan Israelstam, Chief Executive of Labour Law Management Consulting. He may be contacted on (011) 888-7944 or 0828522973 or on e-mail address: ivan@labourlawadvice.co.za. Go to: www.labourlawvideos.co.za
I have repeatedly warned employers of the dire consequences of failing to provide evidence when involved in an arbitration or court case. Arbiters are not allowed merely to take a party’s word for it that it’s claims are true.
This warning is all the more relevant in dismissal cases because employers bear the full onus of proving that the dismissal was fair. Even where the court issue is not dismissal, parties will have to provide proper evidence of their allegations. For example, if an employer claims that it failed to pay an employee because he was absent from work the employer has to convince the court that the employee was indeed absent. And the court will not accept from such an employer anything other than hard evidence. This might be in to form of attendance records, clocking records, CCTV footage, testimony and/or other forms of evidence.
Where the court is not convinced of the employer’s allegations it is unlikely to find in the employer’s favour.
In the case of SATAWU vs G4S Cash Solutions (Lex Info 4 August 2025. Labour Court case number JS 442/21) the employee was reinstated by an arbitrator after he had been unfairly dismissed. However, the employer refused to reinstate him, stating that it was challenging the reinstatement order.
The employee, with the help of his union, petitioned the Labour Court to be given backpay for the period between the original reinstatement order and the court date. The employee testified to the court that he had made three attempts to return to work but that the employer had refused to allow this.
In its court papers the employer contended that the employee did not deserve any backpay because he had not tendered his services after the reinstatement order had been issued. However, the employer provided no evidence to the court to support this claim, which left the employee’s testimony evidence uncontested.
The Court therefore ordered the employer to pay the employee R567 000 in backpay and to pay his legal costs.
In view of this outcome it is clear that employers must ensure that they train their managers and HR/IR executives on the crucial importance of presenting evidence to courts or arbitrators.
The innovative video series WALKING THE LABOUR LAW TIGHTROPE assists employers to provide their managers with very inexpensive training that allows the managers to achieve labour law knowhow at times suitable to their very busy schedules. Its 48 chapters, averaging 10 minutes in length each, can easily be watched at junctures when the manager has time. This greatly informative yet very engaging and practical video series provides crucial and user-friendly learning through the use of a stimulating, animated case study that runs throughout the 48-chapter series. Each chapter contains clear and important advice needed by workplace management on the basics of labour law over a very wide range of topics.
A further advantage is that the manager can, for a full year, easily go back to any of the 48 videos for purposes of refresher training or in order to access information on how to deal with a current workplace issue. This solves the problem of managers forgetting what they have learned.
This video series helps management to walk the shaky labour law tightrope and to run the workplace productively without falling into the labour law abyss.
To access our groundbreaking video series: WALKING THE NEW LABOUR LAW TIGHTROPE please go to www.labourlawvideos.co.za or contact Ivan on ivan@labourlawadvice.co.za
