A waitress, who was fired for not declaring that she had received a R150 cash tip, has failed in her Labour Court bid to challenge this.

Johannesburg Labour Court Judge Edwin Tlhotlhalemaje ruled that the dismissal of Nyaradzo Taguzu and the subsequent confirmation of this at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) was fair and reasonable.

Her actions, the judge said, were “self-serving and bordered on greed”.

Taguzu was employed at Chef’s Warehouse, Maison Estate, in 2016. She was fired in 2018 after a disciplinary process into allegations of misconduct relating to dishonesty for failing to declare her tips.

She referred the dispute to the CCMA, where it was heard by Commissioner Richard Heath.

At the CCMA, the company said it had implemented a policy in December 2017 after consulting with staff, in terms of which all waiters would be required to disclose all their cash tips.

The purpose of this was to ensure that at least 25% of tips were shared amongst all back house staff, who also contributed to customer service and experience.

Liam Tomlin, one of the owners, said that staff had been consulted, but he conceded that Taguzu had refused to sign the policy.

He said, however, she had verbally undertaken to follow it and she had declared her tips on the same day the policy was implemented.

However, it was discovered that she had not done so on 10 and 11 February. Tomlin had asked three customers who confirmed they had tipped her in cash.

He was of the view that she had acted dishonestly, broken the trust relationship, and effectively stolen from her fellow employees.

A customer, Carol Grassman, also testified at the hearing. She conceded to having a business relationship with the restaurant. She said she had dined at the restaurant with her husband. She had paid the bill with a credit card and tipped

Taguzu R150 in cash.

Taguzu denied the allegations. She disputed that there had been proper consultation and said the new policy had been forced on her and other waitresses.

Grassman, she said, had fabricated her version.

But Heath said if Taguzu had concerns about the policy, she should have referred a dispute to the CCMA.

He found Grassman to be a credible witness and that Taguzu had been deceitful and dishonest.

Taguzu, in her review before the Labour Court, said the commissioner had not properly applied his mind to the facts and had reached an unfair and unreasonable decision.

However, Judge Tlhotlhalemaje said he could find no fault with the commissioner’s findings.

He said the policy was meant to benefit all for their collective effort.

“Given the applicant’s unreasonable resistance to the policy, her conduct in my view was not only self-serving but equally bordered on greed.”

He said it was not clear if she had benefited from the general pool of tips while failing to make her own declarations but, if indeed she did, “it fortifies the conclusions that she was indeed greedy”.

“It also appears that she sought to comply with the policy as and when it suited her,” he said.

The commissioner had correctly found there was nothing invalid about the policy, the judge ruled.

As regarded the allegation that Grassman had fabricated her version, the judge said the commissioner would have noted the record of the disciplinary hearing during which other witnesses testified that they had given her cash tips.

The judge said the commissioner’s conclusions “clearly fall within a band of reasonableness”, and dismissed the review. V.4895

One of the highlighted topics: Critical Skills Visa.

- Key Insight: Is your profession on the Critical Skills List? This visa is your fast track to working in South Afr...
- This matter relates to critical skills visa and its broader implications.
- Individuals are advised to seek professional guidance.

Is your profession on the Critical Skills List? This visa is your fast trac V.6139
Click here for full article

One of the applicants, Phindile Mazibuko, became a victim of identity theft in 2012 when fraudulent transactions occurred, using her personal details.

-The Pretoria High Court found that the department of home affairs had violated constitutional rights without due process.
-Only half of Lawyers for Human Rights` test group has been unblocked, while 385 000 identities remain blocked nationwide.
-LHR appeals extension, urges affected people to seek help now.

Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) are intensifying pressure on the department of home affairs over the national ID-blocking crisis, accusing the state of acting too slowly to unblock qualifying individuals despite a landmark court ruling.

In January last year, the Pretoria High Court found that the department`s practice of blocking IDs without due process was unlawful and unconstitutional. One of the applicants, Phindile Mazibuko, a Swati citizen and South African permanent resident since 1998, fell victim to identity theft in 2012 when fraudsters used her personal details.

 V.6133
Click here for full article

The Border Management Authority (BMA) has doubled its staff at Airports in South Africa , including immigration officers.

What does this mean for travelers? V.6128
Click here for full article

The Border Management Authority (BMA) has doubled its staff at Airports in South Africa , including immigration officers.

What does this mean for travelers? V.6129
Click here for full article

A Washington state mother and her 6-year-old son have been released after spending more than three weeks in US immigration detention due to a brief trip to Canada and a small paperwork mistake, her attorney told CNN on Saturday.

Sarah Shaw, a New Zealand citizen who has lived legally in the US since she arrived in 2021, was detained at the Blaine, Washington, Customs and Border Protection checkpoint when returning home after dropping her two oldest children off at the Vancouver airport for a flight to visit their grandparents in New Zealand. Shaw, 33, chose the flight out of Vancouver because it was direct and she didn`t want her children to have to navigate a layover alone, her attorney Minda Thorward, told CNN.

 V.6130
Click here for full article

On 22 July 2025, the Gauteng High Court dismissed Sitrusrand Boerdery`s review of the Department of Employment and Labour`s refusal to issue a Working Conditions and Salary Benchmarking Certificate, an essential precondition for obtaining corporate visas under the Immigration Act.

Acting Judge Kekana AJ held that the Department`s decision was lawful, rational and procedurally fair. This judgment illustrates how businesses can - and must - structure their corporate visa applications to meet statutory requirements, and how legal practitioners should prepare robust review challenges when administrative authorities decline to recommend foreign-work permits.

 V.6131
Click here for full article

The United States could forfeit an estimated 9.4 billion dollars in visitor spending over the next three years following the introduction of a new 250 dollars `visa integrity fee,` according to industry groups, who warn the policy risks undermining tourism and costing thousands of jobs.
The United States’ decision to introduce a 250 dollars `visa integrity fee` on international visitors has triggered sharp criticism from the global tourism industry, with officials warning that the measure could deter millions of travellers and cost the U.S. economy billions.
The 250dollar `visa integrity fee,` part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed on July 4, 2025, will take effect later this year. According to immigration law firm Envoy Global, it applies to all nonimmigrant visa holders which include students, tourists, temporary workers, and business visitors particularly from African countries. V.6132
Click here for full article

The Border Management Authority (BMA) has doubled its staff at Airports in South Africa , including immigration officers.

What does this mean for travelers? V.6127
Click here for full article

1. Right to Legal Representation•You have the right to consult with a legal representative.•Contact an immigration practitioner, legal aid clinic, or attorney urgently.•Do not sign any documents without understanding them fully. 2. Section 34 of the Immigration Act•You must be brought to court with 48 hours to confirm arrest but you can remain locked up very long as courts figure out what to do with you •If you`re found to be illegally in South Africa, you may be detained for up to 30 days (extendable by a magistrate) pending deportation.•BUT this cannot happen arbitrarily. You must be informed of your rights, and Home Affairs must follow due process.- becomes a nightmare , you could lose your job , business , place to stay V.6121
Click here for full article

Driving for Bolt, Uber, Mr D, or Checkers Sixty60?If you`re undocumented, you`re risking more than just your income.The Risks if You`re Not Legal: - Vehicle impoundment - Heavy fines - Arrest & deportation - Permanent bans from working in SA V.6122
Click here for full article