The labour dispute between Lebo M, real name Lebohang Morake, and his estranged wife's friend Sbo Dlamini has been finalised. The Lion King producer came out victorious against Pretty Samuels' friend. The matter was heard at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) offices in Pretoria last Tuesday and it has since been closed.

Lebo M was accused by a former employee of unfair dismissal at Lebo M Productions, where she earned a salary of R25 000 a month. Dlamini worked in the finance department and her boss is said to have "unfairly" fired her after he had a fallout with his wife, Pretty, whom he is divorcing. The final nail in the coffin for Dlamini was hit by Commissioner James Ngoako Matshekga in a ruling dated 31 October 2023, seen by Zimoja, which stated: "The file must be closed."

The CCMA heard that Dlamini started work at both Lebo M Productions and Lebo M Foundation on 12 February 2023. Dlamini gave evidence that she met with Samuels and Lebo M at their house where she was told that she would be working for the Lebo M and that she will be paid R25 000 per month. The ruling reads: "No deductions such as UIF and tax were made from her payment. She received perks such as accommodation, she stayed in the Morake household and later moved to the Morake apartment and was paying levies for the apartment. In April 2023 she was given a phone, laptop and printer as tools of trade. She received payments from the 2nd respondent (Samuels) on behalf of the 1st respondent (Lebo M) for the work she performed. She also received several payments as reimbursements for the expenses that she incurred on behalf of the 1st respondent whilst Lebohang was away. She worked day and night for the 1st respondent. She was never told that she was a consultant,".

Matshekga said that although Dlamini was economically dependent on Lebo M, there are many factors that militate against the relationship that existed between the parties being characterised as that of employment. Giving testimony confirming that Dlamini worked for Lebo M, Samuels said there was an agreement that Dlamini would work for her husband. "There was an agreement that the applicant would be paid R25 000 per month which was to be later increased to R45 000.00 per month. There was no mention that the applicant was an employee of the 1st respondent. There was also no mention that the applicant was a consultant. Lebohang referred to the applicant as a consultant and she found that reference problematic.

According to the applicant's own version, she worked day and night for the 1st respondent, employees do not work day and night and are entitled to leave in terms of the provisions of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 ("the BCEA')," the ruling read. Matshekga also said that Samuels's testimony that there was an agreement that the Dlamini's salary would be increased to R45 000 per month also dealt a fatal blow to her case. "Employees do not normally get more than a 100% salary increment especially after such a short period of engagement. On the evidence before me, the overall impression that I get from the conduct of the parties is that the verbal agreement that they concluded on 21 February 2023 was not an employment agreement. Accordingly, the applicant was not an employee of either the 1st or the 2nd respondent within the meaning of section 213 of the LRA. The CCMA lacks jurisdiction to deal with the dispute because no employer-employee relationship existed between the parties," Matshekga concluded.