South Africa Case Law

National Union of Food Beverage Spirits Wine and Allied Workers and Another v Mbatsana N.O and Others (JR912/20)

National Union of Food Beverage Spirits Wine and Allied Workers and Another v Mbatsana N.O and Others (JR912/20) [2025] ZALCJHB 72 (27 February 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR912/20

Judge

D Venter

The court held that leave to appeal should not be granted as the third respondent failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success. The principles established by the Constitutional Court require that individual employees must be identified at the disciplinary hearing for a dismissal to be fair in cases of collective misconduct. The respondent's argument that identification can occur only at arbitration is contrary to settled law. The process followed by the employer was materially defective, lacking both procedural and substantive fairness. The court found no compelling reason or likelih…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Collective Misconduct
• Common Purpose
• Procedural Fairness
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Derivative Misconduct

Goodyear South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (PR142/22)

Goodyear South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (PR142/22) [2024] ZALCPE 41; [2025] 1 BLLR 35 (LC) (6 November 2024)

Court

Labour Court Port Elizabeth

Case number

PR142/22

Judge

M Makhura

The Labour Court dismissed Goodyear’s review of a CCMA award, upholding findings that 54 dismissals for insubordination were substantively unfair.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Insubordination
• Collective Misconduct
• Disciplinary Procedure
• Consistency In Discipline
• Arbitration Review

AJ Charnaud and Company v SACTWU obo Members and Others (DA 9/23)

AJ Charnaud and Company v SACTWU obo Members and Others (DA 9/23) [2024] ZALAC 33; [2024] 10 BLLR 1016 (LAC); (2024) 45 ILJ 2257 (LAC) (17 July 2024)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

DA 9/2023

Judges

Van Niekerk, Nkutha-Nkontwana, Govindjee

The Labour Court erred in reviewing and setting aside the arbitration award without identifying any reviewable irregularity or finding that the award was unreasonable. The arbitrator's factual findings regarding the identification of employees who participated in the misconduct were supported by direct evidence, and the union failed to adduce contrary evidence. The reference to derivative misconduct was a misnomer, as the evidence established direct participation in serious misconduct. The sanction of dismissal was appropriate given the gravity of the conduct. The Labour Court's reliance on t…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Collective Misconduct
• Derivative Misconduct
• Common Purpose
• Review Of Arbitration Award

Worldwide Staffing (Pty) Ltd v Metal And Engineering Industries and Others (JR1367-23)

Worldwide Staffing (Pty) Ltd v Metal And Engineering Industries and Others (JR1367-23) [2024] ZALCJHB 67; (2024) 45 ILJ 1128 (LC) (12 February 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1367/23

Judge

J.A. Wehncke

The court found that the Third and Fourth Respondents admitted to joining a group carrying offensive placards in violation of picketing rules and crossing designated picketing lines. Their defence that they did not physically hold the placards was irrelevant, as they failed to actively distance themselves from the misconduct. The arbitrator misconstrued the nature of the enquiry by focusing on whether the respondents merely witnessed the misconduct, rather than their association with it. The evidence showed that their conduct was destructive of the trust required in the employment relationshi…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Collective Misconduct
• Protected Strike
• Picketing Rules
• Substantive Fairness
• Risk Management

South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union and Others v Makgopela and Others (JA38/2021)

South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union and Others v Makgopela and Others (JA38/2021) [2023] ZALAC 8; [2023] 6 BLLR 509 (LAC); (2023) 44 ILJ 1229 (LAC) (14 March 2023)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA38/2021

Judges

Phatshoane, Savage, Phatudi

The Labour Appeal Court held that Cashbuild failed to prove collective guilt for stock losses, set aside the dismissal award, and ordered reinstatement with back pay.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Collective Misconduct
• Team Liability
• Arbitration Review
• Reinstatement
• Unfair-dismissal

SACCAWU and Others v Makgopela and Others (JA38/2021)

SACCAWU and Others v Makgopela and Others (JA38/2021) [2023] ZALCJHB 66 (14 March 2023)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JA38/2021

Judges

Phatshoane, Savage, Phatudi

The Labour Appeal Court found that Cashbuild failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the dismissal of all employees for collective misconduct. Unlike precedents where proximity and the nature of work supported an inference of collective responsibility, the Klerksdorp store was large, employees performed diverse functions, and management did not act on identified systemic deficiencies. The evidence did not establish that all employees were aware of or participated in the stock losses, nor did it warrant a finding of indivisible team liability. The employees did not remain silent but r…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Collective Misconduct
• Team Liability
• Derivative Misconduct
• Procedural Fairness
• Substantive Fairness

Sibeko and Others v CCMA and Others (JR2819/11)

Sibeko and Others v CCMA and Others (JR2819/11) [2020] ZALCJHB 6 (21 January 2020)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR2819/11

Judge

S B Hardie

The Labour Court dismissed a review of a CCMA award, upholding findings that the dismissals were procedurally and substantively fair.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Procedural Fairness
• Collective Misconduct
• Protected Strike
• Identification Of Employees
• Unfair-dismissal

Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union obo Biyela v Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JR2560/14)

Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union obo Biyela v Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JR2560/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 38 (7 February 2017)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR2560/14

Judge

S Snyman

The applicant failed to properly apply for condonation for the late filing of the review application, providing no explanation for the delay and omitting a prayer for condonation. Without a reasonable explanation, prospects of success are immaterial and the Labour Court lacks jurisdiction. Even if condonation were considered, the applicant's review grounds are unsubstantiated, and the credibility findings of the arbitrator are unassailable due to the absence of a proper record. The evidence supports the finding that the applicant was complicit in the misconduct, either directly or by failing…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Unfair Dismissal
• Collective Misconduct
• Disciplinary Procedure
• Review Test
• Credibility Findings

SA Metal Group (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C1057/2015)

SA Metal Group (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C1057/2015) [2016] ZALCPE 16 (22 September 2016)

Court

Labour Court Port Elizabeth

Case number

C1057/2015

Judge

Prinsloo

Labour Court review found the arbitrator failed to assess competing evidence and inherent probabilities, so the dismissal award was set aside and remitted.

• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Substantive Fairness Of Dismissal
• Admissibility Of Hearsay Evidence
• Cautionary Rule
• Collective Misconduct
• Procedural Fairness

Dunlop Mixing and Technical Services (Pty) Ltd and Others v National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) obo Nganezi and Others (D345/14)

Dunlop Mixing and Technical Services (Pty) Ltd and Others v National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) obo Nganezi and Others (D345/14) [2016] ZALCD 9; (2016) 37 ILJ 2065 (LC); [2016] 10 BLLR 1024 (LC) (11 May 2016)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D345/14

Judge

Gush

The court found that the third respondent erred by confining derivative misconduct solely to the failure to identify perpetrators, ignoring the breach of trust inherent in the employment relationship. The evidence established that all respondent employees were present during the strike and acts of misconduct. Their failure to come forward, either to identify perpetrators or to exonerate themselves, constituted a breach of trust and derivative misconduct. The applicants repeatedly requested information, and the employees were aware of this obligation. The silence of the employees, in the face…

Source excerpt

• Derivative Misconduct
• Unfair Dismissal
• Breach Of Trust
• Collective Misconduct
• Strike Action
• Evidentiary Burden