NPS Score
-100
Recommended: Unlikely
Oct '25 - Sep '26
Frequently Asked Questions About Department of employment and Labour
How is Department of employment and Labour rated on Hellopeter?
Hellopeter has tracked Department of employment and Labour across 4 reviews. Department of employment and Labour hasn't collected enough recent reviews — at least 10 in the last 12 months are needed — to calculate a TrustIndex score. Have you used Department of employment and Labour? Write a review to help others decide.
Recent reviews (3)
Used this business recently? Share your experience to help others decide.
Used this business recently? Share your experience to help others decide.
Share Your Experience1 reviews | Active since Oct 2014
Unworkable law - ******* hiring of undocumented foreign nationals
Yet another unworkable law being introduced in SA, this time by the Department of Employment and Labour (DEL). The following are copy / pasted quotes from Business Tech. The DEL is actively recruiting 10,000 additional permanent labour inspectors conducting ongoing enforcement operations across the country. Inspection visits can occur without warning. ******* hiring of undocumented foreign nationals by households and businesses will be enforced by heavy penalties. Employers should ensure they keep the necessary documentation on file, including a valid passport and the appropriate work authorisation. My immediate reaction was 'here we go again' with the government opening yet another door for opportunist ********s to take advantage by falsifying official documents to gain entry into private properties. Unpacking the above DEL intentions focussing on domestic workers only, implies the following scenarios with foot soldiers on the loose in suburbs:- First scenario: Armed with binoculars 'catching sight of' likely suspects actively working in the garden, followed by demanding required documentation about the domestic worker. Second scenario: No actual sightings, but demanding information about domestic worker(s) potentially employed by the home owner. In both scenarios, laymen households will not be able to verify the authenticity of the labour inspector simply on the grounds of not knowing what is / is not false identification produced by the individual. It will be at the discretion of the homeowner to either divulge the requested documentation i.r.o employed domestic worker(s) or send the individual 'packing'. How does the DEL envisage a scenario where no domestic worker(s) are employed ?, definitely not in the realm of impossibility! Obviously, there is no way a homeowner can provide proof nor can the DEL prove otherwise, unless of course labour inspectors camp out on municipal grounds 24/7 in an attempt to provide proof of deception by the homeowner..... a truly laughable / impractical situation. It is beyond comprehension for the DEL not to consider a digital-based solution. However reliance on the DEL's uFiling System for eliminating households from inspection would be a non-starter given the estimated 70% of domestic workers unregistered for UIF. Know your lawful rights .... The SA public is under no legal obligation to allow a Department of Employment and Labour (DEL) inspector into your private home without your explicit consent and without prior notice or a warrant from the Labour Court.
1 reviews | Active since Oct 2014
Unworkable law - ******* hiring of undocumented foreign nationals
Yet another unworkable law being introduced in SA, this time by the Department of Employment and Labour (DEL). The following are copy / pasted quotes from Business Tech. The DEL is actively recruiting 10,000 additional permanent labour inspectors conducting ongoing enforcement operations across the country. Inspection visits can occur without warning. ******* hiring of undocumented foreign nationals by households and businesses will be enforced by heavy penalties. Employers should ensure they keep the necessary documentation on file, including a valid passport and the appropriate work authorisation. My immediate reaction was 'here we go again' with the government opening yet another door for opportunist ********s to take advantage by falsifying official documents to gain entry into private properties. Unpacking the above DEL intentions focussing on domestic workers only, implies the following scenarios with foot soldiers on the loose in suburbs:- First scenario: Armed with binoculars 'catching sight of' likely suspects actively working in the garden, followed by demanding required documentation about the domestic worker. Second scenario: No actual sightings, but demanding information about domestic worker(s) potentially employed by the home owner. In both scenarios, laymen households will not be able to verify the authenticity of the labour inspector simply on the grounds of not knowing what is / is not false identification produced by the individual. It will be at the discretion of the homeowner to either divulge the requested documentation i.r.o employed domestic worker(s) or send the individual 'packing'. How does the DEL envisage a scenario where no domestic worker(s) are employed ?, definitely not in the realm of impossibility! Obviously, there is no way a homeowner can provide proof nor can the DEL prove otherwise, unless of course labour inspectors camp out on municipal grounds 24/7 in an attempt to provide proof of deception by the homeowner..... a truly laughable / impractical situation. It is beyond comprehension for the DEL not to consider a digital-based solution. However reliance on the DEL's uFiling System for eliminating households from inspection would be a non-starter given the estimated 70% of domestic workers unregistered for UIF. Know your lawful rights .... The SA public is under no legal obligation to allow a Department of Employment and Labour (DEL) inspector into your private home without your explicit consent and without prior notice or a warrant from the Labour Court.
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2013
Department of employment and Labour in Kwadukuza refused to provide us with UIF status
Boncap requires certain documentation for Income verification. We submitted the relevant document but they now also require UIF status. Dept of employment and labour is completely adamant that they are not allowed to issue confirmation of emplyment status for medical aid purposes and only allowed to issue UIF status for SASSA, hospital purposes or school fees. The agent at Boncap was even willing to speak to Nonhlanhla who is the agent at dept of employment and labour in Kwadukuza and she refused to speak to the agent at Boncap. Nonhlanhla was completely rude, unwilling to assist and kept asking us to rejoin the queue every time she thought that we were wasting her time. Sadly the UIF status forms have been issued to other users without any such challenges but obviously that came at a fee. Your favorable response will be highly appreciated. We tried to obtain the UIF status online but because the relevant individual was never employed or registered with UIF, it therefore does not bring up an records. Regards
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2013
Department of employment and Labour in Kwadukuza refused to provide us with UIF status
Boncap requires certain documentation for Income verification. We submitted the relevant document but they now also require UIF status. Dept of employment and labour is completely adamant that they are not allowed to issue confirmation of emplyment status for medical aid purposes and only allowed to issue UIF status for SASSA, hospital purposes or school fees. The agent at Boncap was even willing to speak to Nonhlanhla who is the agent at dept of employment and labour in Kwadukuza and she refused to speak to the agent at Boncap. Nonhlanhla was completely rude, unwilling to assist and kept asking us to rejoin the queue every time she thought that we were wasting her time. Sadly the UIF status forms have been issued to other users without any such challenges but obviously that came at a fee. Your favorable response will be highly appreciated. We tried to obtain the UIF status online but because the relevant individual was never employed or registered with UIF, it therefore does not bring up an records. Regards
1 reviews | Active since Mar 2025
ABUSE AND *******ION CAPE TOWN CCMA
I am raising a serious concern regarding the conduct of the CCMA Cape Town office and Commissioner Joshua August. During my case (WECT4081-25), Commissioner August pressured me to withdraw my matter and warned that pursuing it could harm my future employment prospects. I found this highly inappropriate and intimidating, especially as it came from someone expected to act impartially. He also made several misrepresentations in his ruling — including stating that I was not copied on management correspondence, despite clear evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, he disregarded the legal principle of vicarious liability, effectively absolving the employer of accountability for the actions of its managers. The commissioner’s reasoning reflected bias and a disregard for key facts presented under oath. I believe this constitutes a reviewable irregularity. While awaiting the outcome of the ongoing investigation, I have recently learned with great shock that my case of unfair labour practice was closed by the Cape Town CCMA, citing it as being outside their jurisdiction. This development feels like a continuation of the abuse I have been subjected to while remaining silent. I was informed of this closure by Aziza Taliep, CTN – Convening Senior Commissioner Assistant (Telephone: +***9). I am assuming that due diligence was exercised before this communication was sent to me. If this matter requires the involvement of political bodies, the Public Protector, or civil society organisations, I am prepared to take it to that extent. The credibility of this institution is being undermined by individuals who take the livelihoods of marginalised people for granted, and this cannot go unaddressed. My experience has left me deeply disappointed in the CCMA’s handling of the matter. As an ordinary employee seeking fairness, I expected protection — not further ************ or procedural unfairness. I am therefore requesting a formal review of Commissioner August’s conduct and a transparent investigation into how such conflicts of interest are managed within the CCMA.
1 reviews | Active since Mar 2025
ABUSE AND *******ION CAPE TOWN CCMA
I am raising a serious concern regarding the conduct of the CCMA Cape Town office and Commissioner Joshua August. During my case (WECT4081-25), Commissioner August pressured me to withdraw my matter and warned that pursuing it could harm my future employment prospects. I found this highly inappropriate and intimidating, especially as it came from someone expected to act impartially. He also made several misrepresentations in his ruling — including stating that I was not copied on management correspondence, despite clear evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, he disregarded the legal principle of vicarious liability, effectively absolving the employer of accountability for the actions of its managers. The commissioner’s reasoning reflected bias and a disregard for key facts presented under oath. I believe this constitutes a reviewable irregularity. While awaiting the outcome of the ongoing investigation, I have recently learned with great shock that my case of unfair labour practice was closed by the Cape Town CCMA, citing it as being outside their jurisdiction. This development feels like a continuation of the abuse I have been subjected to while remaining silent. I was informed of this closure by Aziza Taliep, CTN – Convening Senior Commissioner Assistant (Telephone: +***9). I am assuming that due diligence was exercised before this communication was sent to me. If this matter requires the involvement of political bodies, the Public Protector, or civil society organisations, I am prepared to take it to that extent. The credibility of this institution is being undermined by individuals who take the livelihoods of marginalised people for granted, and this cannot go unaddressed. My experience has left me deeply disappointed in the CCMA’s handling of the matter. As an ordinary employee seeking fairness, I expected protection — not further ************ or procedural unfairness. I am therefore requesting a formal review of Commissioner August’s conduct and a transparent investigation into how such conflicts of interest are managed within the CCMA.