Poor and painfully slow turnaround time, insensitive claims assessors and an oblivious complaints department

I am very frustrated and I feel let down by Clientele Legal with whom I have a legal policy number ***. I referred an unfair labour practice matter that needed an urgent case to be filed at the Labour Court because I was being victimised for objecting to process *****ulent payments, objecting to assist the principals to contravene the MFMA and objecting to aid *******ion that would embezzle public funds. This claim was filed with Clientele Legal in early February which was after I had filed my case at CCMA and was that on the 31st January 2025. Since I had by then filed a dispute with the CCMA on the said date, which was then scheduled for a 'Con/Arb' on Monday, the 10th March at 11 o’clock, I needed a lawyer to assist me. Their claims assessors dragged their feet in responding to my numerous requests for appointing an attorney to assist in my claim and after numerous follow ups, and this above mentioned date was communicated to Clientele Legal.

I even lodged a complaint against their Legal Advisors who were being insensitive and lacked understanding of the matter that I needed assistance with whereby they kept calling it a demolition when the unstated intention by the employer in their letter was to relieve me of duty albeit unprocedurally without any HR processes. If they had read the documents, they would know that this matter is not a demotion and instead it is an unfair dismissal albeit the letter didn’t mention such. Once again, let me mention that they must read the whole pack of documents that were sent through in order to gather the context. I had spoken to Zinhle and Theo both of whom I had a lengthy conversations with and they understood their matter but they were unceremoniously changed without notifying me as to why they were changed. The chopping and changing of Legal Advisors and people that I deal with is frustrating but sadly the case claim is not progressing.

Clientele is failing me which is unfortunate and their summation in referring the case to their preferred attorney clearly indicate/d that they have not read the documents or that they didn’t understand what needed to be done. I had already explained this predicament to their colleagues namely Zinhle and Theo in that there was not even an opportunity to file a grievance because there were no charges nor anything to answer to either. It would have helped to be assisted by someone who is conversant with the laws before making suggestions on things that don’t apply. Once again, my appointment letter was for instance already sent three months ago already and even worse, their complaints department was also oblivious to my pleas. In this latter regard, I wrote several times to them but they never responded even once to my complaints. After persistently calling them to follow up with Clientele Legal, they eventually appointed a very conspicuous attorney namely Grant from the firm, De Beer Claassen Attorneys, which was tantamount to malicious compliance.

The said attorney didn’t help at all nor assist with anything towards preparation for my a case hearing except one lowkey consultation and even then, he was supposed to offer advice, when the Clientele Legal Advisor said that the matter for my salary could be referred to the CCMA but he kept quiet. Anyhow, the initial case that I lodged sat for conciliation but it failed when the municipality sent junior officials who said that they had no mandate to negotiate. To add fuel to the fire, the Commissioner also recused himself afterwards when he raised a non existent conflict of interest whereas it was meant to be referred for or proceed to arbitration. In the latter regard, it so happened that the Commissioner and myself share the same surname but there was no conflict of interest really because we don’t know each other nor are we related nor acquainted even - I saw him for the first time and he too was also seeing me for the first time in that con/ arb matter.

The Commissioner, Xulu then felt that he could not proceed to preside over the arbitration matter despite clearly there not been any conflict of interest nor relations between us. This unduly delayed the arbitration matter from proceeding on the 10th March because the junior staff also came back to the said Commissioner to indicate that they could not get hold of the Accounting Officer. In the aftermath of all that, the CCMA started dragging its feet in terms of setting down the arbitration hearing date and to date, I have still not been given a date despite making numerous follow ups on it. I have consequently been without a salary for 3 months now because of the claims assessors’ and appointed attorney’s dereliction of duty. It is worth mentioning that I had written to Clientele Legal once again at the end of March, which was then two months of waiting on their claims assessors i.e. Clientele Legal’s to appoint an attorney to take the matter to the Labour Court.

The latest assessor, Jackson Mojela instead suggested that I should file a Section 73A of the BCEA with the CCMA because by then, I had not been paid for two months. I wrote back to him to advise that it was a wrong cause of action to propose same. I reasoned that it because of the threshold, something which the Legal Advisors were clearly not aware of hence they insisted that I do so and that I was way above the eligible threshold. I nonetheless obliged to file a claim and it was set down for a con/ arb hearing on Wednesday the 16-Apr-2025 at 12:00. The attorney from De Beer Claassen was copied in all the correspondence that I sent to Clientele advising them about the wrong cause of action but he was conspicuous and never once responded nor acknowledge receipt of the correspondence nor offer any advice on the matter nor corroborate what I said in that it was actually not correct to take it to the CCMA and confirm my assertion about the threshold.

The case was, as expected, dismissed by the second Commissioner due to the threshold that I had three weeks prior to that sitting cited and informed the Clientele Legal assessor about and which the attorney, Grant didn’t comment on nor offer advice on. The Commissioner, Sosibo who presided over my second case indicated that the threshold is R18K and furthermore said that they consequently have no jurisdiction over my matter hence she said that I must withdraw it. I double checked on the CCMA website and I could have saved 2 months had the Clientele Legal Advisors and their attorney given correct advice or at least agreed with my assertion earlier in the claim assessment process. One of the assessors namely Kacha had, like me, suggested that the two claims should be merged because they were part of the same unfair labour practice matter but the assessor, Mojela insisted that another claim had to be opened to do the salary dispute and the lady assessor, Kacha was removed and replaced by another now arrogant assessor Nomfundo.

The Commissioner indicated after the brief hearing, which didn’t even start, that the Labour Court has jurisdiction over such matters, which is something that I had informed Clientele Legal about from the onset when I started this claim. I have been inconvenienced and lost valuable time as a direct consequence of the incorrect advice being given to me by their Legal Advisors and appointed attorney not offering any advice on the subject. I learnt with awe that the attorneys of my employer, Peyper Attorneys then called Clientele and when I spoke to their assessor he didn’t see anything wrong with this clearly ********* behaviour by those attorneys against whom I will also lodge a formal complaint at the Legal Practice Council because they have no business talking to my insurer, none whatsoever and how the assessor doesn’t see anything wrong baffles me. If someone there at Clientele Legal had listened to me 3 months ago, this matter would have been assessed properly.

I am still awaiting a new attorney to be appointed for a Labour Court referral and had they listened to me in February, chances are that it would have sat and been heard by now. I am still waiting for a date (open ended) for setting down the Arbitration case at CCMA with no end in sight. Let me also mention that my employer arrived with three attorneys including an Advocate which left me legally and technically exposed. I don’t mind so much that (i.e. I was without any legal representation) because attorneys are not allowed anyway in the Section 73A of the BCEA matters. I had however asked that someone be present and to refer the matter to the Labour Court because I had already researched it and knew that the correct threshold is R20K maximum. I have now been reliably told that the employer wants to institute a High Court matter to nullify my appointment and they wanted to send the court papers to the attorneys, De Beer Claassen. It is said that it was some weeks ago but those attorneys did not say anything about it to me nor Clientele Legal to seek a mandate.

In the 16th April’s proceedings, the employer brought heavy guns and there was nobody that I could counter balance/ double check with. Anyhow, the case did not even sit beyond greetings and introductions because it was dismissed on a technicality of the threshold whereby my salary is higher than it and therefore it meant that they do not have jurisdiction on my salary matter. It turned out last Thursday, that the attorneys, De Beer Claaseen were afterall aware of the papers that Peyper Attorneys who represent my employer wanted to serve. They said that they however couldn’t receive same nor act on my behalf because Clientele Legal had not given them any mandate nor instructions. This begs the question: if I had not become aware that there were papers awaiting to be served, when will they have communicated this to me? I therefore indicated that I would now like a new firm of attorney who can represent me diligently and must be appointed from another firm which will take my matter seriously or that I be allowed to appoint my own attorney.

What is holding up Clientele Legal from doing so? Kindly advise urgently because instead of taking seriously the overreach by those employer attorneys, the Clientele response comes across as a cover up to me. The continuous stalling under the guise that they are still assessing my claim is curious and it is going to have a negative effect, if it is not actually already having such a negative effect on my case because it doesn’t take 3 months to assess a claim and refer a matter to the Labour Court. I have been without a salary for the third month now hence the case urgently needs to be referred to an attorney who will file urgently at the Labour Court in relation to the non payment of my salaries from February to date whilst awaiting the CCMA which is taking its own time to set the matter for arbitration. This month it was that third month and counting without getting my salary and without any resolution in the unfair labour practice whereas Clientele Legal should appoint an attorney to refer the matter to the Labour Court.

I can’t get justice timeously for both my salary and employment situation when the CCMA is dragging its feet in seething the arbitration date. I honestly don’t understand why the matter is not being sent to the Labour Court and why they are not changing the attorneys, De Beer Claassen who have let me down. If the same principle of conflict of interest is to be followed whereby there are similar surnames, since the Mayor is also De Beer, then surely this case should be referred to another or different firm of attorneys too. The fact that these attorneys gave the opposing attorneys the contact details of the claims assessor at Clientele, means that they cannot be trusted. Secondly, with the knowledge that the employer principals hired ********s to eliminate me, Grant was oblivious since he strangely on the 10th March wanted me to leave the car of the bodyguards and hop onto his car, even when I had distinctly informed him about the serious threat on my life.

Whilst that may be curious but I don’t know what to make of it nor am suggesting anything where he is concerned suffice to say that I don’t trust him anymore nor that firm. I have stated categorically to Clientele Legal that ideally, I would like to appoint my own attorney who will have my best interest at heart unlike the attorney that they appointed for me who was not responsive. I had been told that because of the potentially incriminating information that the principals believe that I possess and that is why I was victimised in the first place, they want me dead or gone or both. I brought this to the attention of Grant before the 10th March hence I arrived with bodyguards, but to then ask me to abandon the car that I came with with armed bodyguards is questionable. I can’t possibly still trust such attorneys anymore and the fact that the opposing attorneys called my claim assessor is a very ********* behaviour on their part, which will be subject to a complaint at the LPC. I have therefore stated categorically that I will never set ever foot again at the offices of those attorneys De Beer Claassen because they breached the attorney-client privilege.

How could they divulge to the opposing attorneys who have nothing to do with how I am paying, as to who was paying my legal fees and/or by extension who was going to fund my defense since I was the first planning to take the matter to the Labour Court or if they served those High Court papers. I am sorry but someone can’t play with my life and still expect me to trust them, which cuts both ways with the claims assessors who are dragging this claim much longer than it is supposed to be. I am not sure anymore whether is serious or is it just about taking premiums and coming up with excuses when they have to pay for legal fees but their actions speak louder than their words/ correspondence and given me wrong advice.