Rustenburg Platinum v CCMA and Others (J712/200) [2001] ZALCJHB 15 (4 October 2001)

Rustenburg Platinum v CCMA and Others (J712/200) [2001] ZALCJHB 15 (4 October 2001)

The court found that the commissioner acted within the bounds of the Labour Relations Act and the Code of Good Practice by considering the appropriateness of dismissal as a sanction. The evidence showed confusion regarding which rules applied, the employees' genuine belief in the SAFA rules, and the lack of prior misconduct. The commissioner had a reasonable and objective basis for concluding that dismissal was too harsh and not a fair sanction. The applicant failed to establish grounds under section 145 of the Act to set aside the award. The application for review was therefore dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2001] ZALCJHB 15
Parties
Applicant: Rustenburg Platinum; Respondent: CCMA & Others
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 October 2001
Case Number
J712/2000
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review and setting aside of the commissioner's award is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Gering
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Sanction for Misconduct, Code of Good Practice, Reasonable Employer Test
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Sanction for Misconduct Code of Good Practice Reasonable Employer Test

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rustenburg Platinum

Applicant

CCMA & Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner's decision that dismissal was too harsh constitutes a reviewable irregularity.
  2. 2 Whether the sanction of dismissal was appropriate under the circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner complied with the Labour Relations Act and the Code of Good Practice in determining fairness.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner acted within the bounds of the Labour Relations Act and the Code of Good Practice by considering the appropriateness of dismissal as a sanction. The evidence showed confusion regarding which rules applied, the employees' genuine belief in the SAFA rules, and the lack of prior misconduct. The commissioner had a reasonable and objective basis for concluding that dismissal was too harsh and not a fair sanction. The applicant failed to establish grounds under section 145 of the Act to set aside the award. The application for review was therefore dismissed with costs.

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.