The CCMA has done its best over the years to limit legal
representation in cases before it and thereby to limit legal costs
orders in favour of successful parties, to the extent that in the
last 15 years of practice I have yet to receive a costs order in
favour of a client who has been successful in a matter.
Now here's the thing which I can't quite get my head
around: An employee is dismissed and refers a dispute to the CCMA.
An arbitrator finds in his favour awarding to him either
re-instatement or compensation. The company cries foul and takes
the award on review to the Labour Court where it also requests
costs against whichsoever party unsuccessfully opposes the matter.
We know that neither the CCMA nor the arbitrators hardly ever
oppose review applications and that it is only the employee who, in
justifiably wishing to cling to his award, does so. To make matters
worse, in order to oppose the review, he needs to engage an
attorney to navigate his way around the
