CCMA_SA
Claimed Business
|1.3|14 Reviews (last 12 months)|This business does not respond to reviews
CCMA_SA
Claimed Business
|1.3
14 Reviews (last 12 months)
Does not respond to reviews
AI Review Summary
Based on recent customer reviews, CCMA_SA is drawing significant dissatisfaction from users seeking labour dispute resolution. A recurring theme is perceived commissioner bias favouring employers, with customers consistently mentioning pressure to withdraw cases, disregarded evidence, and procedurally unfair hearings. Many describe poor responsiveness, unanswered emails, and prolonged delays in case progression. Frontline call handlers are frequently described as abrupt and lacking empathy. A small number of customers do highlight positive experiences with specific branches such as Gandhi Square, praising quick turnaround times on WhatsApp and email enquiries.
Performance(last 12 months):
Trustindex Rating
2.1TrustIndex
2.1
Review Distribution
1.3|14 Reviews
Jul '25 - Jun '26
Recent reviews (14)
Used this business recently? Share your experience to help others decide.
Used this business recently? Share your experience to help others decide.
Share Your ExperienceLH
Leon H
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
12 May 2026, 09:54
No feedback from ccma
I Leon Hattingh ID Number 7409105015081 appeal against the judgment of the CCMA commissioner in the dispute case CASE NUMBER: MPEM7486-25 Leon Hattingh Applicant And Underberg Dairy (Pty) Ltd Respondent Date of Hearing: 11 December 2025 11h30 on Teams Date of Submission of Heads of Argument: N/A Date of Ruling: 11 December 2025 Please find attached my reasons for appealing against the outcome of this meeting. 1. Underberg Dairy used evidence from a previous CCMA case that took place on the 16 May 2025 in Pietermaritzburg KwaZulu-Natal at the CCMA offices. It has already been concluded and a judgment has already been rendered. 2. Underberg Dairy does not have the right to use documentation from previous hearings in the case because it has already been concluded. This has no connection with the current case. 3. Underberg Dairy has already openly admitted during the meeting CASE NUMBER: MPEM7486-25 that took place on the 11 December 2025 at a meeting on Temo. that they did provide false and negative information when companies contacted Underburg Dairy for job references. By saying that Leon Hattingh is not qualified to manage staff in a management position. Which is false because the worker has already held a management position for 15 years with previous employers and achieved positive results. 4. And as a result of the admission, Leon Hattingh has already been unemployed for 7 months due to the false and negative information disclosed by the Underberg Dairy HR Manager Me.Suntie Perkins to prospective employers. 5. As I Leon Hattingh already provided my reasons in my request to the CCMA in a letter and asked that the matter be held online or in Mpumalanga because the worker does not have the necessary funds to travel to KwaZulu-Natal for the meeting because he has not received any income for 7 months because the Underberg Dairy is providing false and negative information to prospective employers and has already admitted that they did provide the information such as the WhatsApp evidence that I Leon Hattingh has already made available to the CCMA and submitted as evidence together with his report regarding the matter. 6. Regardless of the jurisdictions that determine that the matter is in the area where Underberg Dairy is located and does business. Is this not a valid and just reason to refer the matter to KwaZulu-Natal. Because I Leon Hattingh has already provided valid reasons to the CCMA in the letter I emailed to the CCMA and the employee has also received it. 7. I Leon Hattingh does not have the necessary funds to travel to KwaZulu-Natal because i has already been unemployed for 7 months due to the false and negative information that Underburg Dairy provided to the upcoming employers and this has also been confirmed and acknowledged by the Underberg Dairy and Monique Jonker admitted it in the meeting that took on the 11 December 2025 at 10 h30 on Temo. 8. Fairness and Access to Justice: While the jurisdiction is generally fixed, the CCMA process aims to be accessible and fair. The CCMA Rules allow for flexibility to accommodate genuine hardships, such as a lack of funds for travel. Remote Hearings/Change of Venue: Conciliation and arbitration hearings can and do take place via teleconference or online digital platforms (such as Temo). The complainant should formally apply for the hearing to be conducted remotely or for a change of venue to their current location, citing their unemployment and financial constraints. This is a common accommodation to ensure access to justice. 10. It would only be fair to both parties if one could be reached. That the matter could take place in a neutral place where both parties would benefit. Otherwise, Underberg Dairy would have to pay the transportation costs of the worker to attend the matter. Because Underberg Dairy has already admitted that they provided false and negative information to prospective employers. 11. It was not a fair ruling to move the case to KwaZulu-Natal. Because Underberg Dairy already been given the benefit of the doubt so that the case can take place in KwaZulu-Natal. 12. Underburg Dairy has also openly admitted during the meeting that they provided false and negative information to prospective employers via Me Santie Perkins HR Manager on the 11 December 10h30 on Temo 13. Which causes Underberg Dairy to be prevented by his previous employer Leon Hattingh from getting a job again. 14. That is a valid reason why I Leon Hattingh cannot travel to KwaZulu-Natal for the meeting. 15. As I Leon Hattingh has already provided reasons in the letter to CCMA as to why I Leon Hattingh moved to Middleburg Mpumalanga. Therefore, I feel that the ruling was not fair and should be reconsidered. 16. Because Underburg Dairy is already being favoured even before a ruling was made. Underburg Dairy has already admitted that they provided false and negative information to prospective employers and this is the reason why I Leon Hattingh has been without any income for 7 months. It would only be fair if Underburg Dairy owed Leon Hattingh 7 months' salary as compensation. Because Underberg Dairy have already openly admitted that they provided the information to prospective employers when they contacted the company. It is very clear what Underberg Dairy's intentions are here. They are trying their utmost to drag out the matter for as long as possible. Trying everything in their power to disrupt the matter. Underberg Dairy has already openly admitted on the 11 December 2025 at 10h30 on Temo meeting infront of the commissioner that they have already provided false and negative information to prospective employers via Me SantiePerkins HR Manager on 12 November 2025 11h 02 to Me Elizabeth Fildes Administrator of the company Log Construction from Middleburg Mpumalanga.I Leon Hattingh also hande in the WhatsApp message between me and Me Elizabet on WhatsApp as proof to the CCNA where se admitted that Underberg Dairy via Me Santie Perkins HR Manager of UnderbergDairy also admitted that she sed so and the representative of Underberg Dairy Me.Monique Jonker also admitted that Me.Santie Perkins said it. So why is it now necessary to move the matter to KwaZulu-Natal. It is simply unnecessary. Because Underberg Dairy has already openly admitted that they are providing false and negative information to prospective employers. This is the main reason why I, Leon Hattingh, brought the matter to the CCMA. I Leon Hattingh just feel that it is unnecessary to refer the matter to KwaZulu-Natal. For some reason it only delays the matter because Underberg Dairy has already openly admitted that they are providing false and negative information to prospective employers. So it saves both parties unnecessary time and money. And that no one can be disadvantaged by it. Waiting for feedback from CCMA regarding this matter. Show quoted text Good day. Kindly note CCMA works with geographical jurisdictions, and if you are not happy with the ruling, you may review it. Or you may apply for Rule 24 and give reasons why the matter should be sent down in witbank. Regards Show quoted text Good morning Mavis Hope you are well. I am waiting for feedback regarding my appeal on case MPEM7486-25.Can you kindly provide me feedback please. Regards Leon Hattingh Show quoted text Show quoted text Show quoted text Good morning I am still waiting for feedback regarding this matter. Because the employer admitted that they gave falls information and negative information to prospective employees regarding work references. I can't see way we still need to move the case to KwaZulu-Natal. The employer admitted to be guilty. So why couldn't the chairman not having already delivered a verdict is unfair. Now everyone whent quiet and the employee walk away.Unfairly decision. I am waiting for your feedback regarding this matter. Regards Leon Hattingh Show quoted text Still no response from ccma .My last email was send on the 05 January 2026
Helpful (0)
|Replies (0)LH
Leon H
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
12 May 2026, 09:54
No feedback from ccma
I Leon Hattingh ID Number 7409105015081 appeal against the judgment of the CCMA commissioner in the dispute case CASE NUMBER: MPEM7486-25 Leon Hattingh Applicant And Underberg Dairy (Pty) Ltd Respondent Date of Hearing: 11 December 2025 11h30 on Teams Date of Submission of Heads of Argument: N/A Date of Ruling: 11 December 2025 Please find attached my reasons for appealing against the outcome of this meeting. 1. Underberg Dairy used evidence from a previous CCMA case that took place on the 16 May 2025 in Pietermaritzburg KwaZulu-Natal at the CCMA offices. It has already been concluded and a judgment has already been rendered. 2. Underberg Dairy does not have the right to use documentation from previous hearings in the case because it has already been concluded. This has no connection with the current case. 3. Underberg Dairy has already openly admitted during the meeting CASE NUMBER: MPEM7486-25 that took place on the 11 December 2025 at a meeting on Temo. that they did provide false and negative information when companies contacted Underburg Dairy for job references. By saying that Leon Hattingh is not qualified to manage staff in a management position. Which is false because the worker has already held a management position for 15 years with previous employers and achieved positive results. 4. And as a result of the admission, Leon Hattingh has already been unemployed for 7 months due to the false and negative information disclosed by the Underberg Dairy HR Manager Me.Suntie Perkins to prospective employers. 5. As I Leon Hattingh already provided my reasons in my request to the CCMA in a letter and asked that the matter be held online or in Mpumalanga because the worker does not have the necessary funds to travel to KwaZulu-Natal for the meeting because he has not received any income for 7 months because the Underberg Dairy is providing false and negative information to prospective employers and has already admitted that they did provide the information such as the WhatsApp evidence that I Leon Hattingh has already made available to the CCMA and submitted as evidence together with his report regarding the matter. 6. Regardless of the jurisdictions that determine that the matter is in the area where Underberg Dairy is located and does business. Is this not a valid and just reason to refer the matter to KwaZulu-Natal. Because I Leon Hattingh has already provided valid reasons to the CCMA in the letter I emailed to the CCMA and the employee has also received it. 7. I Leon Hattingh does not have the necessary funds to travel to KwaZulu-Natal because i has already been unemployed for 7 months due to the false and negative information that Underburg Dairy provided to the upcoming employers and this has also been confirmed and acknowledged by the Underberg Dairy and Monique Jonker admitted it in the meeting that took on the 11 December 2025 at 10 h30 on Temo. 8. Fairness and Access to Justice: While the jurisdiction is generally fixed, the CCMA process aims to be accessible and fair. The CCMA Rules allow for flexibility to accommodate genuine hardships, such as a lack of funds for travel. Remote Hearings/Change of Venue: Conciliation and arbitration hearings can and do take place via teleconference or online digital platforms (such as Temo). The complainant should formally apply for the hearing to be conducted remotely or for a change of venue to their current location, citing their unemployment and financial constraints. This is a common accommodation to ensure access to justice. 10. It would only be fair to both parties if one could be reached. That the matter could take place in a neutral place where both parties would benefit. Otherwise, Underberg Dairy would have to pay the transportation costs of the worker to attend the matter. Because Underberg Dairy has already admitted that they provided false and negative information to prospective employers. 11. It was not a fair ruling to move the case to KwaZulu-Natal. Because Underberg Dairy already been given the benefit of the doubt so that the case can take place in KwaZulu-Natal. 12. Underburg Dairy has also openly admitted during the meeting that they provided false and negative information to prospective employers via Me Santie Perkins HR Manager on the 11 December 10h30 on Temo 13. Which causes Underberg Dairy to be prevented by his previous employer Leon Hattingh from getting a job again. 14. That is a valid reason why I Leon Hattingh cannot travel to KwaZulu-Natal for the meeting. 15. As I Leon Hattingh has already provided reasons in the letter to CCMA as to why I Leon Hattingh moved to Middleburg Mpumalanga. Therefore, I feel that the ruling was not fair and should be reconsidered. 16. Because Underburg Dairy is already being favoured even before a ruling was made. Underburg Dairy has already admitted that they provided false and negative information to prospective employers and this is the reason why I Leon Hattingh has been without any income for 7 months. It would only be fair if Underburg Dairy owed Leon Hattingh 7 months' salary as compensation. Because Underberg Dairy have already openly admitted that they provided the information to prospective employers when they contacted the company. It is very clear what Underberg Dairy's intentions are here. They are trying their utmost to drag out the matter for as long as possible. Trying everything in their power to disrupt the matter. Underberg Dairy has already openly admitted on the 11 December 2025 at 10h30 on Temo meeting infront of the commissioner that they have already provided false and negative information to prospective employers via Me SantiePerkins HR Manager on 12 November 2025 11h 02 to Me Elizabeth Fildes Administrator of the company Log Construction from Middleburg Mpumalanga.I Leon Hattingh also hande in the WhatsApp message between me and Me Elizabet on WhatsApp as proof to the CCNA where se admitted that Underberg Dairy via Me Santie Perkins HR Manager of UnderbergDairy also admitted that she sed so and the representative of Underberg Dairy Me.Monique Jonker also admitted that Me.Santie Perkins said it. So why is it now necessary to move the matter to KwaZulu-Natal. It is simply unnecessary. Because Underberg Dairy has already openly admitted that they are providing false and negative information to prospective employers. This is the main reason why I, Leon Hattingh, brought the matter to the CCMA. I Leon Hattingh just feel that it is unnecessary to refer the matter to KwaZulu-Natal. For some reason it only delays the matter because Underberg Dairy has already openly admitted that they are providing false and negative information to prospective employers. So it saves both parties unnecessary time and money. And that no one can be disadvantaged by it. Waiting for feedback from CCMA regarding this matter. Show quoted text Good day. Kindly note CCMA works with geographical jurisdictions, and if you are not happy with the ruling, you may review it. Or you may apply for Rule 24 and give reasons why the matter should be sent down in witbank. Regards Show quoted text Good morning Mavis Hope you are well. I am waiting for feedback regarding my appeal on case MPEM7486-25.Can you kindly provide me feedback please. Regards Leon Hattingh Show quoted text Show quoted text Show quoted text Good morning I am still waiting for feedback regarding this matter. Because the employer admitted that they gave falls information and negative information to prospective employees regarding work references. I can't see way we still need to move the case to KwaZulu-Natal. The employer admitted to be guilty. So why couldn't the chairman not having already delivered a verdict is unfair. Now everyone whent quiet and the employee walk away.Unfairly decision. I am waiting for your feedback regarding this matter. Regards Leon Hattingh Show quoted text Still no response from ccma .My last email was send on the 05 January 2026
0
Replies (0)WV
Werner V
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
3 May 2026, 09:17
UNWILLING TO HELP EMPLOYEE WHO GOT FIRED UNFAIRLY
Ccma is very unresponsive,I'm trying to open my case for over 3years,but with no success, they don't even respond.they are definitely not helping people unfairly fired while fell sick on site with a stroke and till today it's not possible for me to work.struggling financially now and I got my medical reports from hospital with evidence that I was admitted in hospital
Helpful (0)
|Replies (0)WV
Werner V
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
3 May 2026, 09:17
UNWILLING TO HELP EMPLOYEE WHO GOT FIRED UNFAIRLY
Ccma is very unresponsive,I'm trying to open my case for over 3years,but with no success, they don't even respond.they are definitely not helping people unfairly fired while fell sick on site with a stroke and till today it's not possible for me to work.struggling financially now and I got my medical reports from hospital with evidence that I was admitted in hospital
0
Replies (0)WV
Werner V
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
29 Apr 2026, 11:57
Bad service with no help from CCMA
I've been fired from my job ********ly,while I fell sick at work (stroke) CCMA is not helpful at all with my case.i don't know if it's got something to do with the fact that the company that fired me got labour lawyers...I'm struggling financially and got all my documents from hospital as evidence to prove I was really sick,in fact I am still unable to work.the company even filled my UIF forms frodulantly by stating I absconded even though i did inform my boss that Im sick and at UIF office on there systems it showed that I resigned which is not true.im really disappointed in ccma,to my understanding they are meant to be there for the employees,but that's not the case.ive sent numerous emails and made fone calls without any success
Helpful (0)
|Replies (0)WV
Werner V
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
29 Apr 2026, 11:57
Bad service with no help from CCMA
I've been fired from my job ********ly,while I fell sick at work (stroke) CCMA is not helpful at all with my case.i don't know if it's got something to do with the fact that the company that fired me got labour lawyers...I'm struggling financially and got all my documents from hospital as evidence to prove I was really sick,in fact I am still unable to work.the company even filled my UIF forms frodulantly by stating I absconded even though i did inform my boss that Im sick and at UIF office on there systems it showed that I resigned which is not true.im really disappointed in ccma,to my understanding they are meant to be there for the employees,but that's not the case.ive sent numerous emails and made fone calls without any success
0
Replies (0)PK
SN
Sydwell N
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
21 Apr 2026, 06:30
I went to CCMA"Jhb" to open a case as instructed by NATIONAL BARGAINING AND COUNCIL under the section 73A of BCEA and CCMA. Since CCMA is the the statutory body with authority to deal with these claims" GAJB17759-25 " but nothing changed or assisted to ge
CCMA AT JOHANNESBURG, COMMISSIONERS SHELVED CASE INDEFINITELY,DELAYING JUSTICE,DENYING RESOLUTION,ENABLING FRUSTRATION.
Helpful (0)
|Replies (0)SN
Sydwell N
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
21 Apr 2026, 06:30
I went to CCMA"Jhb" to open a case as instructed by NATIONAL BARGAINING AND COUNCIL under the section 73A of BCEA and CCMA. Since CCMA is the the statutory body with authority to deal with these claims" GAJB17759-25 " but nothing changed or assisted to ge
CCMA AT JOHANNESBURG, COMMISSIONERS SHELVED CASE INDEFINITELY,DELAYING JUSTICE,DENYING RESOLUTION,ENABLING FRUSTRATION.
0
Replies (0)MM
Mapula M
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
11 Mar 2026, 12:09
Commissioner Eugen Mtileni lost all the recording and made a biased judgement.
I am raising a dissatisfaction regarding the misconduct of the Commissioner Eugene Mtileni at CCMA Johannesburg office. Commissioner issued an award and everything in that award is a lie. Commissioner lost all the recordings but still continued to issue the award. The only recordings he has are the ones for the last day.
Helpful (0)
|Replies (0)MM
Mapula M
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
11 Mar 2026, 12:09
Commissioner Eugen Mtileni lost all the recording and made a biased judgement.
I am raising a dissatisfaction regarding the misconduct of the Commissioner Eugene Mtileni at CCMA Johannesburg office. Commissioner issued an award and everything in that award is a lie. Commissioner lost all the recordings but still continued to issue the award. The only recordings he has are the ones for the last day.
0
Replies (0)PK
Phindile K
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
19 Feb 2026, 13:03
Everyone
I am writing to formally express my dissatisfaction with the manner in which my case against Meze Foods was handled at the CCMA. Veerening room 13 I was dismissed by Meze Foods and referred the matter to the CCMA, as I believe my dismissal was unfair. During arbitration, the company based their accusations against me solely on a written statement which I maintain was fabricated and misrepresented. They did not present direct evidence or recordings to support their allegations. When requested to provide recordings, they were unable to do so and indicated that I would need to wait 14 days for them to respond. During the proceedings, I felt that I was not given a fair opportunity to fully present my case. The Commissioner indicated that I did not have sufficient evidence and suggested that I should not continue with the case. However, I was not properly guided on how to present my version of events or what evidence would be required from my side. Furthermore, on 17 February, I attended what was scheduled to be an arbitration hearing. However, the matter was instead reverted to conciliation. I was under the impression that the conciliation phase had already taken place in November last year under Commissioner Leanne Joy Alexander. I was concerned that the matter was not allowed to proceed as scheduled. I also felt that my side of the story was not fully heard. The focus was placed only on whether I had proof, without a detailed opportunity for me to explain the circumstances surrounding my dismissal. I approached the CCMA seeking fairness and protection under labour law. I respectfully request that this matter be reviewed, as I believe the process did not allow for procedural fairness and left me feeling disadvantaged. I trust that this complaint will be investigated to ensure that justice and fairness are upheld. Yours faithfully,
Helpful (0)
|Replies (0)PK
Phindile K
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
19 Feb 2026, 13:03
Everyone
I am writing to formally express my dissatisfaction with the manner in which my case against Meze Foods was handled at the CCMA. Veerening room 13 I was dismissed by Meze Foods and referred the matter to the CCMA, as I believe my dismissal was unfair. During arbitration, the company based their accusations against me solely on a written statement which I maintain was fabricated and misrepresented. They did not present direct evidence or recordings to support their allegations. When requested to provide recordings, they were unable to do so and indicated that I would need to wait 14 days for them to respond. During the proceedings, I felt that I was not given a fair opportunity to fully present my case. The Commissioner indicated that I did not have sufficient evidence and suggested that I should not continue with the case. However, I was not properly guided on how to present my version of events or what evidence would be required from my side. Furthermore, on 17 February, I attended what was scheduled to be an arbitration hearing. However, the matter was instead reverted to conciliation. I was under the impression that the conciliation phase had already taken place in November last year under Commissioner Leanne Joy Alexander. I was concerned that the matter was not allowed to proceed as scheduled. I also felt that my side of the story was not fully heard. The focus was placed only on whether I had proof, without a detailed opportunity for me to explain the circumstances surrounding my dismissal. I approached the CCMA seeking fairness and protection under labour law. I respectfully request that this matter be reviewed, as I believe the process did not allow for procedural fairness and left me feeling disadvantaged. I trust that this complaint will be investigated to ensure that justice and fairness are upheld. Yours faithfully,
0
Replies (0)RM
Ramolokoane M
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
24 Nov 2025, 15:39
CCMA Unfairly dismissed my case
Took Old Mutual Finance to Arbitration as they dismissed me for Misconduct. For leads they allegedly acquired ******* from transunion with no consent from the people on the list, tried to argue my case that those leads are not from the old Mutual Finance system they are informal leads acquired by the Area Manager but still I lost my case. How am I being dishonest with leads sourced *******ly. It was an unfair dismissal
Helpful (0)
|Replies (0)RM
Ramolokoane M
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
24 Nov 2025, 15:39
CCMA Unfairly dismissed my case
Took Old Mutual Finance to Arbitration as they dismissed me for Misconduct. For leads they allegedly acquired ******* from transunion with no consent from the people on the list, tried to argue my case that those leads are not from the old Mutual Finance system they are informal leads acquired by the Area Manager but still I lost my case. How am I being dishonest with leads sourced *******ly. It was an unfair dismissal
0
Replies (0)