Malicious CCMA case

Get a lawyer, unless you are confident that you have your facts straight and they will believe it.

I would:
Deny that he is an employer.
He refused to find work.
He refuses to pay rent.
He refused to find other accommodation.
He refused to leave when you asked him to.
You cannot afford to look after him.
He has no legal right to be on the property and you don't want him there.


Sounds like this guy leeches of other people for a living. They will most probably also want to know why after X-years is he only kicked out now? So not only are you taking his 'job' away, but also his accommodation. I would just go see a lawyer for advise.

Hope mom learns from this lesson. He however will move onto the next person.
 
Last edited:
Freely gained access to your property but not an employee. So he was an intruder?
Sorry but not following proper protocol regarding the employment of people will result in a run in with the CCMA.

Attend the meeting and pay what is negotiated. Use this as a lesson/education for the future.

Nonsense. He was an invited guest.

No payment will be negotiated at all.
 
Get a lawyer, unless you are confident that you have your facts straight and they will believe it.

No lawyer is required. They must believe HIM, not you. He has no case.

The only reason the CCMA is hearing this claim is because they have to listen to ALL claims in person.
 
Freely gained access to your property but not an employee. So he was an intruder?
Sorry but not following proper protocol regarding the employment of people will result in a run in with the CCMA.

Attend the meeting and pay what is negotiated. Use this as a lesson/education for the future.

Do I now have to start employing family, friends and other guests for them to be able to enter my property?
 
No lawyer is required. They must believe HIM, not you. He has no case.

The only reason the CCMA is hearing this claim is because they have to listen to ALL claims in person.
I would suggest get a lawyer or just some professional that has experience with this so that you get all the procedural thing right.
 
I would suggest get a lawyer or just some professional that has experience with this so that you get all the procedural thing right.

I agree. And if someone can be walked over so easily, can't see how she will be able to handle the 'legal' side.

This is arbitration at the CCMA, not Labour Court. There is a huge difference.

The commisioner listens to both sides of the story while you sit around a table.
Then he speaks to each individual seperately.
Then he makes a decision.

He may ask for some kind of settlement to try and make the whole thing just go away, as they MUST avoid Labour Court by any means.
IF he does, which I sincerely doubt, just refuse, as there is no case.

This will never get onto the roll at Labour Court, as this is not a labour dispute, but rather an attempt at extortion.

The commissioner will probably throw this out as soon as he has listened to the "plaintiff's" story, as it is BS.
 
This is arbitration at the CCMA, not Labour Court. There is a huge difference.

The commisioner listens to both sides of the story while you sit around a table.
Then he speaks to each individual seperately.
Then he makes a decision.

He may ask for some kind of settlement to try and make the whole thing just go away, as they MUST avoid Labour Court by any means.
IF he does, which I sincerely doubt, just refuse, as there is no case.

This will never get onto the roll at Labour Court, as this is not a labour dispute, but rather an attempt at extortion.

The commissioner will probably throw this out as soon as he has listened to the "plaintiff's" story, as it is BS.
OK. Thanks for the info. So a lawyer will only be needed if things are taken further.
 
I would suggest get a lawyer or just some professional that has experience with this so that you get all the procedural thing right.

You are not allowed to bring a lawyer into a CCMA hearing, only a labour representative from an employer's organisation.
 
Serious advice, change your locks and up your security if possible. He knows the ins and outs and may have left with copies of keys etc. Have heard of robbery and worse following this type of situation. He is probably desperate and your mother now makes for the easiest target. He may also not work alone but find much worse people than him to work with who will then provide him with a cut of the haul.
 
Serious advice, change your locks and up your security if possible. He knows the ins and outs and may have left with copies of keys etc. Have heard of robbery and worse following this type of situation. He is probably desperate and your mother now makes for the easiest target. He may also not work alone but find much worse people than him to work with who will then provide him with a cut of the haul.

Fully agreed!
 
Sounds like a guest to me...
To them a guest, to him an employee.


Do I now have to start employing family, friends and other guests for them to be able to enter my property?
Completely different situation.

Nonsense. He was an invited guest.

No payment will be negotiated at all.

He was a guest according to whom? Why keep someone under your roof other than to have them help out.
Unless they were lovers, it's his word against theirs.
 
Helping someone out is not employment, so your point is?

You help someone out with a flat tyre not this. Bottom line is, you keep someone on your property for 6 years, make them comfortable and then ask them to leave, there's bound to be consequences.
The fact that you put up with said person for so long, he automatically becomes an asset not a burden.
 
You help someone out with a flat tyre not this. Bottom line is, you keep someone on your property for 6 years, make them comfortable and then ask them to leave, there's bound to be consequences.
The fact that you put up with said person for so long, he automatically becomes an asset not a burden.

Not according to our law system...

You may think otherwise, but if there isn't significant missing info from the OP, then this man was merely a guest and there was never a valid expectation of employment.
 
Not according to our law system...

You may think otherwise, but if there isn't significant missing info from the OP, then this man was merely a guest and there was never a valid expectation of employment.

Then why invite a "guest" into your home other than to have him in some sort of employment capacity. I assume this person wasn't a relative or close in any other way to the defendant.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X