Rustenburg Platinum v CCMA and Others (J712/2000) [2001] ZALC 159; [2002] 4 BLLR 387 (LC); (2002) 23 ILJ 1067 (LC) (4 October 2001)

Rustenburg Platinum v CCMA and Others (J712/2000) [2001] ZALC 159; [2002] 4 BLLR 387 (LC); (2002) 23 ILJ 1067 (LC) (4 October 2001)

The court held that the commissioner was correct in rejecting the 'reasonable employer test' and instead applying the statutory requirement to assess the fairness of the sanction in light of the facts and the Code of Good Practice. The evidence showed confusion regarding which rules applied, and the employees reasonably believed the SAFA rules governed their conduct. Their actions occurred outside the workplace, were first offences, and no physical harm resulted. The commissioner had a reasonable and objective basis to conclude that dismissal was too harsh and not a fair sanction. No reviewable irregularity was established under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act, and the award must...

Citation
[2001] ZALC 159
Parties
Applicant: Rustenburg Platinum; Respondent: CCMA & Others
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 October 2001
Case Number
J712/2000
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for review and setting aside of the commissioner's award is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Gering
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Dismissal for Misconduct, Reasonable Employer Test, Code of Good Practice, Sanction Appropriateness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Dismissal for Misconduct Reasonable Employer Test Code of Good Practice Sanction Appropriateness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rustenburg Platinum

Applicant

CCMA & Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner's finding that dismissal was too harsh and not an appropriate sanction should be set aside under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner applied the correct legal test in determining the fairness of the dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether the rules applicable to the employees' conduct were valid, clear, and known to the employees.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the commissioner was correct in rejecting the 'reasonable employer test' and instead applying the statutory requirement to assess the fairness of the sanction in light of the facts and the Code of Good Practice. The evidence showed confusion regarding which rules applied, and the employees reasonably believed the SAFA rules governed their conduct. Their actions occurred outside the workplace, were first offences, and no physical harm resulted. The commissioner had a reasonable and objective basis to conclude that dismissal was too harsh and not a fair sanction. No reviewable irregularity was established under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act, and the award must...

Court Disposition

Application for review and setting aside of the commissioner's award is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for review and setting aside of the commissioner's award is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.