IMATU obo Diaz v City of Cape Town and Others (C487/2021) [2024] ZALCCT 38 (30 August 2024)

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

AT CAPE TOWN

CASE NO: C487/2021

In the matter between:

IMATU obo FARENAAZ DIAS Applicant and CITY OF CAPE TOWN First Respondent SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT BARGAINING COUNCIL Second Respondent COMMISSIONER F VAN DER MERWE N.O. Third Respondent

Date of Set Down: 29 June 2023

Date of Judgment: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal representatives by email, publication on the Labour Court website and release to SAFLII. The date for handing down judgment is deemed to be on 30 August 2024.

JUDGMENT

DE VILLIERS-JANSEN AJ

Introduction

1. This is an opposed review application. The applicant, IMATU, represents Ms Farenaaz Dias (Ms Dias). Ms Dias was employed by the first respondent, the City of Cape Town (the City). She was dismissed from the City’s employ pursuant to a disciplinary hearing. She lodged an unfair dismissal dispute with the second respondent, the South African Local Government Bargaining Council (the bargaining council). The bargaining council appointed the third respondent to hear the unfair dismissal dispute (the arbitrator). Neither the bargaining council nor the arbitrator participated in this review.

2. The arbitrator found that Ms Dias’ dismissal from the City’s employ was procedurally unfair, but substantively fair. In respect of the former finding, the arbitrator awarded Ms Dias compensation in the sum of R29 518.16. The equivalent of two months’ remuneration. The award was made because of the City’s long delay, without explanation, in charging Ms Dias. Some five years after the alleged commission of the misconduct. Thus, the only issue in the review is the arbitrator’s finding that Ms Dias’ dismissal was substantively fair. IMATU seeks an order reinstating Ms Dias into the position she occupied, retrospectively, to the date of her dismissal, without the loss of remuneration or benefits.

Material evidence

3. The City charged Ms Dias with two charges of misconduct.

3.1. Charge 1 reads thus: You misconducted yourself in that you were grossly dishonest when you by-passed your water meter, during the period March 2011 to

September 2015 at No. […] K[…] Road, S[…], Atlantis for your own financial gain.

3.2. And charge 2 reads as follows: You misconducted yourself in that you breached section 9 of the Code of Conduct for Municipal Staff members (Section 9. Council property. A staff member of a municipality may not use, take, acquire, or benefit from any property or asset owned, controlled or managed by the municipality to which that staff member has no right) in that you by-passed your water meter for your own financial gain and in doing so, defrauded the City.

The City’s evidence

4. Mr Sonnekus, employed in the City’s forensic services department, testified on its behalf. He did not adduce direct

evidence of Ms Diaz’ involvement in the by-pass. He testified that the City became aware of the by-pass when an anonymous caller called its hotline to report that one, Mario, had bypassed his water meter at his home at 1[…] D[…] street, A[…] (the D[…] street property), and had also bypassed the water meter at his girlfriend’s home at […] K[…] Street, A[…] (the K[…] property). They arrived at the D[…] street property on 16 September 2015. Upon their arrival, they met a Ms Levies who identified herself as the owner of the property which she shared with Mario Van Schalkwyk. Under cross-examination, Mr Sonnekus conceded that Mario referred to by the anonymous caller was Mario Van Schalkwyk. Ms Levies was married to Mario Van Schalkwyk at the time, but they were going through a divorce. He lived in the wendy house on the property. The by-pass connected water to the wendy house. Thus, the water supply to the wendy house did not flow through the water meter. According to Mr Sonnekus, Mr van Schalkwyk was present at the D[…] street property when the City’s officials found the by-pass. He informed the City’s officials that he had appointed someone to connect a water supply to the wendy house, but he could not remember who it was. However, Ms Levies was of the view that Mr Van Schalkwyk connected the by-pass himself. She expressed this view because he was employed by the City in its water and sanitation department and would have known how to go about it.

5. During the investigation at the D[…] street property, Ms Levies informed the City’s officials that Mr Van Schalkwyk had a girlfriend who lived at the Kleinplaat property. A Ms van Schalkwyk. At the K[...] property, the City’s officials met Ms Van Schalkwyk. She occupied a Nutec house on the K[...] property. There too the City’s officials discovered the by-pass which supplied water to the Nutec house. According to Mr Sonnekus, Ms van Schalkwyk informed them that although she lived on the property, the property belonged to her sister, Ms Diaz. At the time, Ms Dias was no longer living on the property. She had moved from the K[...] property on 27 November 2014. According to Mr Sonnekus, when Ms Dias arrived at the K[...] property she acknowledged that it was her property but that it was not registered in her name. She had left the property approximately eighteen months before. She informed them that she had paid a plumber to connect a water supply to the Nutec house but could not provide them with the details of the plumber she had employed.

6. Mr Sonnekus did not adduce any evidence of when Ms Dias would have employed a plumber to install the water supply to the Nutec house. Under cross-examination, he accepted that he could not say how long ago the by-pass would have been installed. He confirmed that Ms Dias had left the property approximately eighteen months before. He sought to infer that because Ms Van Schalkwyk had been living in the Nutec house for approximately four years, the by-pass would have been done approximately four years before its discovery. He draws this inference because, so he says, Ms Dias had told him that she had employed a plumber to connect water to the Nutec house. Under cross-examination, however, he accepted that he did not know whether the Nutec house was let to Ms Van Schalkwyk by Ms Dias’ ex-husband, Mr Hattingh, and that he collected the rental.

7. It was also put to Mr Sonnekus under cross-examination that he did not interview either Ms Dias or Ms Van Schalkwyk on the day they arrived at the K[...] property. They were interviewed sometime thereafter in November 2015 by another City official, Mr Maseko, who accompanied Mr Sonnekus on the day they arrived at the K[...] property. The interview took place at the City’s Whale Street offices. They told Mr Maseko that Ms Dias did not employ a plumber to connect water to the Nutec house. Ms Van Schalkwyk did, and she paid rent to Ms Dias’ ex-husband, Mr Hattingh, for the Nutec house. They agreed that she would connect water and electricity to the Nutec house.

8. It is common cause that the City has effected several repairs to the water meter at the K[...] property before Ms Dias vacated the property in November 2014. In October and November 2011, the City replaced the water meter. In March, April and August 2012, the City repaired a broken leading, underground leak and a leak at the water meter and stopcock. In June 2014, the City repaired a broken leading. In January and February 2015, the City replaced and relocated a ceased water meter. In September 2015, the City repaired a leak at the water meter and stopcock, and on 16 and 23 September, removed the bypass. To dispel the notion that the by-pass was installed prior to Ms Dias leaving the K[...] property in February 2015, it was put to Mr Sonnekus that the City would have discovered the by-pass during those repairs had it been there. Mr Sonnekus was unable to dispute the proposition.

9. Mr Pathan, a Depot Manager at the City’s Hillstar Waterworks, was the Principal Water Inspector for the City at the time the by-passes were discovered at the D[…] street and K[...] properties. He testified that when they arrived at the K[...] property, there was no one at the main house. They approached the Nutec house where they met Ms van Schalkwyk, although he referred to her as Rabia Abrahams. He explained that they were investigating an illegal water by-pass on the property. According to him Ms Van Schalkwyk did not believe him that there was an illegal by-pass on the property but agreed that they could continue with their investigation. She informed him that it was not her property, but Ms Dias’. Ms Dias arrived at the property. Although, he cannot recall what they spoke about, he says that it would have been about what they had found. According to him, she told him that she asked a plumber to lead a pipe to the Nutec house, not to by-pass the water meter. They excavated around the water meter and found the by-pass. He explained that the stopcock on the meter was in the box which would have necessitated installing the by-pass under water pressure. According to him, the person who installed the by-pass would have had the experience to do so without turning off the water supply. The tools required to install a by-pass are not owned by most people. It is generally found at the depots. He confirmed that Mario Van Schalkwyk worked at the depot. Ms Dias’ version that the by-pass could only have taken place between 18 February 2015 and 28 July 2015 was put to him. He could not refute that version, nor could he say when the bypass was done. On his version, it could have been done at any time. That must include the timeframe contended for by Ms Dias.

10. There was considerable debate under cross-examination of the type of meter installed at the K[...] property and whether the stopcock on the meter was in the box as described by Mr Pathan during his evidence in chief. There is a significant difference between his evidence and the version put up by Ms Dias. She testified that the stopcock on the meters installed at the time would not have been in the box but was situated underground away before the meter. The significance lies in this. Given all the repairs carried out at the property over the previous four years, including the replacement of the meters, the by-pass would have been discovered. This proposition seems consistent with Mr Pathan’s evidence that they had to excavate around the meter to find the by-pass. Significantly, he could not say from the photographs taken of the meter at the property whether the stopcock was on the meter and in the box as he had suggested in his evidence in chief. When asked whether there were any photographs showing that the stopcock was on the meter in the box, he could not point to any. He said that his investigation was not to check whether the meter had a stopcock. His investigation concerned identifying an illegal connection and therefore he had not taken any photographs. But he could not say that there was no stopcock before the meter at the K[...] property as Ms Dias suggested, nor has he seen one.

Ms Dias’ evidence

11. Ms Dias did not dispute that the water meter at the property referred to in charge 1 was by-passed. She disputed that she did it and that she would have done so during the period March 2011 and September 2015 for her benefit.

12. Ms Dias married Mr Hattingh in 1998. Mr Hattingh applied for a house at a low-cost social housing project in Atlantis. His application was successful and in 2003, they moved into the house. She was unemployed at the time. They agreed that he would pay all their bills, including the rent on the property. They lived together until 2008 when their marriage broke down. They agreed that he would continue to pay all their bills and the rent in respect of the property, in exchange for her foregoing any maintenance. They separated on those terms. On 1 October 2009, she commenced her employment with the City. She and their children remained alone on the property until late in 2011 when her sister, Ms Van Schalkwyk, approached Mr Hattingh to put up a Nutec house on the property. Ms Van Schalkwyk put up the Nutec house and moved in early in 2012. Ms Dias confirmed that the City attended the property on several occasions to effect the repairs referred to above. Either she or Ms van Schalkwyk called the City to effect the repairs. After she moved into the Nutec house, Ms Van Schalkwyk approached the municipality in Atlantis for the installation of water and electricity. She was advised to obtain a plumber and an electrician. Ms Van Schalkwyk had the water connection installed as she was advised. On 27 November 2014, Ms Dias left the property after Mr Hattingh objected to her and her new partner living on the property. Ms Dias confirmed that she did not request a plumber to install the by-pass, nor has there been a by-pass from the time that they had moved in in 2003 until she left in 2014. Around 2015, after she left the property, she became aware that Mr Van Schalkwyk had

moved into the Nutec house with Ms Van Schalkwyk.

13. On 16 September 2015, Ms Van Schalkwyk called Ms Dias to the property. Upon her arrival she spoke to Mr Pathan who explained to her that they were investigating an illegal by-pass. He asked whether she knew about the by-pass. She said no. She did not speak to Mr Sonnekus, nor has she told tell him that she was the owner, nor has she told him that she employed a plumber to install a water connection. She was called to a meeting with Mr Maseko at the City’s Whale Street offices. She did not tell Mr Maseko that she called a plumber to connect water to the Nutec house. On the contrary, the meeting concerned an investigation into Mr Van Schalkwyk. She did not benefit from the by-pass. Ms Van Schalkwyk paid rent directly to Mr Hattingh. The City’s records adduced as evidence show that Ms Van Schalkwyk reported the faults to the water installation which were repaired in March 2012 and June 2014 to the City.

14. Under cross-examination, Ms Dias testified that she saw the City’s officials dig up the area around the water meter when they came to effect the repairs. And in February 2015, Shamrock Contractors, who replaced and relocated the water meter, would have seen the by-pass. Shamrock Construction would have reported it. There was according to her no by-pass on the property between 2003 and 2014.

15. Ms Van Schalkwyk testified that she asked Mr Hattingh if she could put up the Nutec house on the property. He agreed and they agreed on a rental. After the Nutec house was erected, she approached the municipality to inquire about water and electricity connections. She was told to obtain a plumber and an electrician, which she did. Mr Van Schalkwyk moved in with her in early 2015. Ms Dias had already left the property when Mr Van Schalkwyk moved into the Nutec house. Mr Van Schalkwyk told her sometime later that when he moved into the Nutec house, the water pressure was weak and that he obtained someone to attend to it. Mr Van Schalkwyk testified at Ms Dias disciplinary inquiry that he obtained a plumber to deal with the water pressure at the Nutec house. Ms Van Schalkwyk was not present at the property when this occurred. Under cross-examination, she confirmed that Mr Van Schalkwyk lived with Ms Levies at the D[…] street property before he moved in with her.

The award

16. The arbitrator accepted that the City had not adduced direct evidence that Ms Dias installed or had the by-pass installed. He considered

that his determination of Ms Dias’ involvement turned on circumstantial evidence. This called upon him to draw certain inferences. Where a court, or an arbitrator as is the case here, is asked to draw factual inferences from the evidence, they must be inferences that can reasonably be drawn from it, even if they need not be the only possible inferences from that evidence. If they are tenuous or far-fetched the onus is not discharged. The drawing of inferences from the facts must be based on proven facts and not matters of speculation or conjecture. Only if there is proper proof of the primary facts can the question of drawing an inference properly arise.[1]

17. Ms Dias was charged with gross dishonesty when she allegedly by-passed her water meter during the period March 2011 to September 2015 for her financial gain. She was also charged with breaching the code of conduct for municipal workers which provides that a staff member may not use, take, acquire or benefit from any property or asset owned, controlled or managed by the municipality to which the staff member had no right. This breach is alleged to have occurred when she by-passed her water meter for own financial gain and in doing so, defrauded the City.

18. Given the absence of any direct evidence, it was incumbent upon the arbitrator to have determined the proven facts from which he would infer that Ms Dias was guilty of the misconduct with which she had been charged. The arbitrator has not said what the primary facts were which he considered have been proven to draw the necessary inferences. In the absence of any proven primary facts, the question of drawing inferences did not arise. Instead, he embarked upon an analysis of the probabilities of the respective versions put up by the parties. In my view, had the arbitrator approached the dispute by determining the facts which he considered were proven to establish the misconduct on the part of Ms Dias, he could not have arrived at the conclusion which he did.[2]

19. The starting point of the assessment is the anonymous call the City received on 27 July 2015 alerting it to the by-passes at the D[…] street and K[...] properties. The caller informed the City of one Mario who had by-passed the water supply at his property, the D[…] street property, and at his girlfriend’s property in Sherwood Park. It was common cause that Mario was Mr Van Schalkwyk, that he lived at 18 D[.. ] street and that – by 16 September 2015 - Ms van Schalkwyk was his girlfriend who lived at the K[...] property. When the City’s officials arrived at the D[…] street property, they found the by-pass and Ms Levies, Mr Van Schalkwyk’s wife at the time, informed them that he had also by-passed the meter at the K[...] property where Ms Van Schalkwyk lived. Although, Mr Sonnekus’ evidence was that Ms Levies was of the view that Mr Van Schalkwyk installed the by-pass, he also testified that Mr Van Schalkwyk told him that he had asked someone to connect water to the wendy house in which he lived on the D[…] street property. After removing the by-pass at the D[…] street property, the City’s officials left to inspect the K property. There they also found the water meter had been by-passed. The arbitrator did not consider this evidence.

20. Given the evidence, Mr Van Schalkwyk is a key factor in the installation of the by-passes at both properties. The arbitrator

excluded him from the K[...] property on the basis that the overwhelming evidence was that the water connection was done just before or at the time Ms Van Schalkwyk moved into the Nutec house in early 2012. But that was the evidence of Ms Dias and Ms Van

Schalkwyk. There is nothing overwhelming about this evidence. Ms Van Schalkwyk was told by the municipality that she would have to install the water supply by employing a plumber, which she said she did.

21. At least two difficulties arise in respect of the arbitrator’s finding that the by-pass found on 16 September 2015 could only have occurred around or just before the beginning of 2012. First, it loses sight of Mr Van Schalkwyk’s involvement with the by-passes. The undisputed evidence is that Mr Van Schalkwyk moved into the Nutec house in early 2015. This was well before the anonymous call in July 2015. When the call was made, the City was referred to the by-passes at both properties. It also loses sight of Mr Pathan’s concession that the by-passes could have been installed at any time - that would include the time after Mr Van Schalkwyk moved into the Nutec house; as well as his explanation that in his experience, the person who made the anonymous call was probably someone who was involved and did not get paid. It also loses sight of Ms Van Schalkwyk’s evidence that Mr van Schalkwyk told her that he had someone attend to the low water pressure at the Nutec house. The most plausible inference is that Mr Van Schalkwyk installed the by-pass at the K[...] property after he moved into the Nutec house.

22. Second, I agree with Ms Geldenhuys who appeared for Ms Dias that the arbitrator failed to consider evidence which showed that the by-pass could not have been installed before February 2015. Shamrock Contractors tendered on the basis that they would, inter alia, install and reposition the meter management device outside the K[...] property. A photograph tendered in evidence during the arbitration, shows the water meter after it had been relocated by Shamrock Contractors in February 2015. The by-pass, which can be seen in the photograph, is situated very close to the meter itself. Accordingly, if the by-pass had been installed prior to February 2015, the contractors ought to have seen it, and to have reported it. It is improbable that the contractors would have relocated the water meter and reinstalled the by-pass.

23. Mr Khoza, who appeared for the City, contended that the arbitrator correctly found that Ms Dias was the owner of the K[...] property as contemplated by the City’s Water By-Law.[3] Clause 2 provides, inter alia, that a breach of the By-Law committed on premises in respect of a water installation, is deemed to be a breach by the owner of the premises.

24. The By-Law defines the owner of premises in three ways. Firstly, as the person who holds the legal title to the property. Secondly, as the curator, trustee, executor, administrator, judicial manager, liquidator or other legal representative of the person in whom legal title is vested, but who is insolvent or has died or is under any form of legal disability. Thirdly, it defines owner as follows - in any case where the Council is unable to determine the identity of such person, the person who is entitled to the benefit or the use of such premises. The City relies on the third definition.

25. The evidence disclosed that Mr Hattingh rented the property from the Low-Cost Housing Scheme Project in Atlantis. The Scheme was liquidated. The City took over the property. It seems that it became the legal owner of the property. As such, this is not a situation in which a liquidator is the regarded as the owner of the property. Even if it is, the liquidator ought then to be held responsible. And there is no difficulty in determining the identity of the owner as contemplated by the third meaning. It is either the City, or the Low-Cost Housing Scheme Project. In the light of the above, it appears that Ms Dias does not fit the definition of an owner as contemplated.

26. In any event, clause 2 of the By-Law presents a further difficulty. It provides that unless the contrary is proved, a breach of its provisions committed on premises in respect of the water installation, is deemed to be a breach by the owner of the premises. Unlike the arbitrator who considered that it is less relevant whether Ms Dias is the legal owner, I shall assume in favour of the City that Ms Dias is the owner of the K[...] property. However, in my view, the contrary was proved. The plausible inference to be drawn is that Mr Van Schalkwyk committed the breaches contemplated by the provisions of the By-Law.

27. The arbitrator found that it was highly improbable that between late 2011 and November 2014, Ms Dias would not have been aware of the by-pass because neither Hattingh, nor Mr Van Schalkwyk nor Ms van Schalkwyk mentioned it to her. This finding is premised upon the arbitrator’s finding that the by-pass was installed late in 2011 or early 2012 when Ms Van Schalkwyk moved into the Nutec house. The following evidence militate against the finding that Ms Dias would have known of the by-pass - the photographic evidence which shows the by-pass in front of the relocated water meter; no reason had been advanced as to why any of them would inform Ms Dias of the by-pass; the undisputed evidence that Ms Dias and Ms Van Schalkwyk called the City to effect the repairs to the water installation, which would have been foolhardy had they known of the by-pass. Furthermore, if it is accepted that the by-pass was installed after Mr Van Schalkwyk moved into the Nutec house, Ms Dias would not have known of the by-pass because she vacated the property in November 2014. She testified that she had not returned to the property for several months. She heard that Mr Van Schalkwyk moved into the Nutec house, but she did not know when. At no stage had she lived on the K[...] property at the same time as Mr van Schalkwyk.

28. Furthermore, it seems that the arbitrator sought to find that Ms Dias benefitted from any property, or asset owned, controlled or managed by the City’s property – water – by finding that she would at least have benefitted indirectly from a lower water account, which benefit extended to her sister, Ms Van Schalkwyk, and her ex-husband, Mr Hattingh. The finding that Ms Dias benefitted is simply not supported by the evidence. The evidence shows that the by-pass supplied water to the Nutec house. Mr Van Schalkwyk and Ms Van Schalkwyk who occupied the Nutec house would have benefitted from the by-pass. Mr Hattingh, who the evidence shows paid the water bills to the City, would have benefitted from the by-pass. The evidence does not show that any water which by-passed the water meter was diverted to Ms Dias for her use.

29. There is no dispute that Mr van Schalkwyk moved into the Nutec house in early 2015. By then Ms Dias had already left the K[...] property. She left the property on 27 November 2014. The mere fact that the municipal accounts were issued care of Ms Dias is in my view not definitive of the benefit contemplated by the definition of owner. If the arbitrator’s reasoning had to be followed, Mr Hattingh and Ms Van Schalkwyk would fall within the ambit of the definition. Both had the benefit of the property.

Grounds of review

30. Ms Dias relied in her founding papers on the grounds of review provided for in s 145 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 and on the ground of review espoused in Sidumo. The court formulated the test in respect of the review of arbitration awards thus: is the decision reached by the commissioner one which a reasonable decision-maker could not reach.

31. In Herholdt v Nedbank Ltd (Congress of SA Trade Unions as Amicus Curiae) 2013 (6) SA 224 (SCA) the court held that for a defect in the conduct of the proceedings to amount to a gross irregularity as contemplated in s 145(2)(a)(ii) of the LRA, the arbitrator must have misconceived the nature of the enquiry or arrived at an unreasonable result. A result is only unreasonable if it is one that a reasonable arbitrator could not reach on all the material that was before the arbitrator. Material errors of fact, as well as the weight and relevance to be attached to particular facts, are not in and of themselves sufficient for an award to be set aside but are only of any consequence if their effect is to render the outcome unreasonable. See also Head of the Department of Education v Mofokeng and others (2015) 36 ILJ 2802 (LAC) at para 32.

32. A central feature of both charges is the by-passing of the water meter. The arbitrator found that the City discharged the overall onus of proving Ms Dias’ misconduct. Mr Khoza contended that the arbitration award falls within the range of awards a reasonable decision-maker could grant. I don’t agree. I am not persuaded that the arbitrator determined the primary facts from which to infer that Ms Dias by-passed the water meter at the K[...] property. I am also not persuaded that the arbitrator properly evaluated the facts presented at the hearing or arrived at a conclusion which was reasonable to justify his decision. Neither of the City’s witnesses could say that Ms Dias by-passed her water meter during the period March 2011 to September 2015, nor have they adduced any evidence from which to infer that she did. On the contrary, Mr Pathan’s evidence in this regard is telling. He testified that it could been installed at any time. Furthermore, both witnesses were unable to provide any evidence to refute Ms Dias’ contention that the by-pass did not exist before 15 February 2015.[4] Their evidence is in my view largely tenuous and speculative.

33. In all the circumstances, I am of the view that Ms Dias’ dismissal was substantively unfair. As already stated above, whether Ms Dias’ dismissal was procedurally unfair is not in issue. The arbitrator found that it was. This brings me to the order I would grant.

Order

1. The review application is upheld. That part of the arbitration award dated 4 August 2021 in which the applicant’s dismissal is found to have been substantively fair, is reviewed and set aside and substituted with a finding that the applicant’s dismissal was substantively unfair.

2. The first respondent is directed to reinstate the applicant into the position she occupied as at the date of her dismissal, retrospectively to the date of her dismissal, without any loss of remuneration or benefits.

3. No order is made as to costs.

De Villiers-Jansen AJ

Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa

Representatives:

For the Applicant: N Geldenhuys Trade Union Official, IMATU For the First respondent: Instructed by: GSS Khoza G Nkomo Inc. Attorneys

[1] Knoop NO and Another v Gupta and Another 2021 (3) SA 88 SCA para19; MV Pasquale Della Gatta MV Filippo Lembo Imperial Marine Co v Deiulemar Compagnia Di Navigazione Spa 2012 (1) SA 58 SCA para 24.

[2] Sidumo and Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd 2008 (2) SA 24 CC para 110 (Sidumo)

[3] The Water By-Law of 2010 approved by the Council of the City of Cape Town on 17 October 2010 and promulgated on 18 February 2011 in the Province of the western Cape Provincial Gazette 6847.

[4] Gold Fields Mining SA (Pty) Ltd (Kloof Gold Mine) v CCMA & others (2014) 35 ILJ 943 (LAC) para 16.