[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-502197-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-502197-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","gaek-6242-20-jurisdictional-ruling-04-july-2019","GAEK 6242-20 - Jurisdictional Ruling - 04 July 2019","","Jurisdictional ruling in CCMA matter GAEK 6242-20 between George Ndou and two others (applicants) and Legosec International (respondent), dated 04 July 2019. The respondent raised a preliminary jurisdiction point during con/arb proceedings, alleging the applicants appeared under false identity on the LRA 7.11 referral. Evidence and submissions describe employment services performed unlawfully through mismatched identities and missing PSIRA certificates. The commissioner finds the referral defective, concludes CCMA lacks jurisdiction, and directs closure of the file and service to the Department of Home Affairs.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/","Exam",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/gaek-6242-20-jurisdictional-ruling-04-july-2019/502197/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/gaek-6242-20-jurisdictional-ruling-04-july-2019/502197.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Margaret","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-10","2026-10-03",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",12,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What jurisdictional issue was raised in the CCMA process?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The respondent raised that the applicants appeared under false identity, arguing their real identities differed from those provided on the LRA 7.11 referral form.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Why did the commissioner find the CCMA lacked jurisdiction?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The commissioner found the LRA 7.11 referral defective because it was signed under false identities by persons who were not the party(ies) entitled under the CCMA Rules to sign the referral, and thus did not qualify for the remedy under section 73A of the BCEA.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What directions were given after the ruling?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The CCMA case management was directed to close the file and to serve the ruling to the Department of Home Affairs.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},502197,1791736581,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,95,100,105,110,115,120,123,127],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":112,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":128,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":130},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":132},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":133,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":33,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":33,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":124,"preview_page_count":4},137451207643,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","JURISDICTIONAL RULING  \nCase Number:  GAEK 6242-20  Commissioner:  Rendani Ewart Matumba  Date of Award:  04 July 2019   \nIn the matter between  \nGeorge Ndou and 2 Others  \n(“the applicant”)  \nLegosec International  \n(“the respondent”)  \nUnion/Employee’s representative:  In person   \nUnion/Applicant’s address:  02 Sethukga Section   \nTembisa  \nTelephone:  (082)-816-2287   \nTelefax:  N/A   \nE-mail:  N/A   \nEmployer’s representative:  In person   \nRespondent’s address:  151 Elizabeth Street   \nPretoria  \nTelephone:  (082)-816-2287   \nTelefax:  N/A   \nE-mail:  [headoffice@legosec.co.za](headoffice@legosec.co.za) ; [leeann@legosec.co.za](leeann@legosec.co.za)   \nDETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION  \n1) This is a Jurisdictional Ruling in the matter between George Ndou and 2 others, the Applicants, and Legosec International, the respondent.  \n2) Only 2 of 3 applicants appeared before me and the respondent was represented by Marco Entrec, an official from South African United Employers Organization (SAUEO) .  \nBACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE  \n3) On 31 July 2020, the matter was set down before me for con/arb process. During conciliation, the respondent raised a jurisdictional point that the applicants before me are appearing under false identity , citing that their real identity is different from those provided on the LRA 7.11 referral form.  \n4) In terms of the summary of the facts on the LRA 7.11 referral form, the applicants are claiming outstanding salaries.  \n5) It was pertinent that I allow both parties to address me on this preliminary point through submissions in terms of Rule 31(10) of the CCMA Rules for the Conduct of Proceedings before the CCMA.  \nSUBMISSION BY PARTIES  \nRespondent  \n6) Both applicants sourced employment from the respondent under false identification. Mr Lovemore Blessed Maweni was employed by the respondent as Mr Macbeth Lamola under identity no: 860823 5478 080. Mr Brighton Mtandwa was employed by the respondent as Mr George Ndou under identity no: 800812 6025 084.  \n7) The 3 applicants submitted their Curriculum Vitae using false identity in order to secure employment with the respondent. They rendered their employment services under false identity. The applicants did not have PSIRA certificates which is mandatory in the security industry.  \n8) The applicants would have not received any employment or remuneration had they submitted true documents. Although they have worked for the period they are claiming, the same was done unlawfully.  \n9) The 3rd applicant, was employed as Jeffrey Sokhela under identity number: 810325 5502 084 and his real identity is Mr Morebows Dzedze. The birth date on the passport states 03 June 1980 and to the contrary, the Curriculum Vitae says 20 March 1981.  \nApplicants  \n10) Mr Brighton Mtandwa cited as Mr Gorge Ndou, identity no: 800812 6025 084 on the LRA 7.11 referral indicated that during his employment on 09 November 2019, he produced his Passport to the respondent seeking employment. The respondent indicated that in order for him to secure employment, he must have South African Identity document and PSIRA Certificate.  \n11) The respondent provided him with a false identity as stated above. The respondent further provided him with the bank account belonging to Mr George Ndou.  \n12) Mr Lovemore Maweni cited as Mr Macbeth Lamola, identity no:860823 5478 086 on the LRA 7.11 referral stated that he was also offered false identity just like Mr Brighton Mtandwa. In his case, he rendered his employment services since 01 June 2018 without a PSIRA certificate.  \n13) According to them, the respondent was aware of the false identification since they were able to allow them to continue render employment service under the same false identification.  \nDISCUSSIONS  \n14) Section 73A of Basic Condition of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (“the BCEA”) as amended provides that “any person who earns equal to or less than the BCEA threshold, may refer to the CCMA a dispute concerning any failure to pay","cbCaik6OWIQuLtY2","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaik6OWIQuLtY2","pdf",139093,"English","# Case details\n## Hearing and representation\n## Background to the dispute\n# Submissions by parties\n## Respondent submissions\n## Applicants submissions\n# Discussions and legal reasoning\n## BCEA section 73A\n## CCMA rules on signatures\n# Ruling and directions","[{\"question\":\"What jurisdictional issue was raised in the CCMA process?\",\"answer\":\"The respondent raised that the applicants appeared under false identity, arguing their real identities differed from those provided on the LRA 7.11 referral form.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did the commissioner find the CCMA lacked jurisdiction?\",\"answer\":\"The commissioner found the LRA 7.11 referral defective because it was signed under false identities by persons who were not the party(ies) entitled under the CCMA Rules to sign the referral, and thus did not qualify for the remedy under section 73A of the BCEA.\"},{\"question\":\"What directions were given after the ruling?\",\"answer\":\"The CCMA case management was directed to close the file and to serve the ruling to the Department of Home Affairs.\"}]","GAEK 6242-20 - Jurisdictional Ruling - 04 July 2019 | PDF",1791030258]