Inxuba Yethemba Municipality v Msweli Others (Application for Leave to Appeal) (PR198/21) [2025] ZALCPE 10 (30 May 2025)
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Case number
PR198/21
Judge
P N Kroon
The Labour Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal, holding that the review grounds lacked merit and the arbitrator’s reinstatement award was unsustainable.
Bidvest Protea Coin (Pty) Ltd v PTAWU and Others (JR1471/21) [2025] ZALCJHB 111 (14 March 2025)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Case number
JR1471/21
Judge
M Makhura
The court held that the commissioner’s decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The charge against the employee included both dereliction of duty and negligence, making negligence a competent verdict. The commissioner properly considered the employee’s medical condition, the disciplinary code, and the lack of evidence of gross misconduct or irreparable harm to the trust relationship. The company failed to justify why dismissal was the only appropriate sanction. The award of reinstatement with limited backpay and a final written warning was found to be fair and reasonable. The re…
Brauns and Others v Wilkes N.O and Others (JA 47/22) [2024] ZALAC 1; [2024] 4 BLLR 365 (LAC); (2024) 45 ILJ 1183 (LAC) (18 January 2024)
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Case number
JA 47/22
Judges
Molahlehi, Musi, Malindi
The Labour Appeal Court found that the Commissioner properly identified and evaluated the principal issues, considered all relevant evidence including the confession and admissions, and arrived at a reasonable decision that the dismissals were substantively fair. The confession was found to be freely and voluntarily made before a magistrate, and its admissibility was properly established. The appellants' contention that the confession was invalid due to lack of information or emotional distress was rejected. The sanction of dismissal was not excessively harsh given the seriousness of the misc…
Association of Mineworkers & Construction Union (AMCU) v Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (C193/2020) [2023] ZALCCT 36 (29 June 2023)
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Case number
C193/2020
Judge
Rabkin-Naicker
Labour Court review of a dismissal award dismissed. Condonation for late filing was granted, but the court upheld the arbitrator’s finding that the instruction was reasonable.
Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (JA17/2021) [2022] ZALAC 3 (27 January 2022)
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Case number
JA17/2021
Judges
Davis, Savage, Kubushi
The Labour Appeal Court found that the Labour Court erred in rejecting the complainant's evidence, which was not challenged in cross-examination and was supported by the third respondent's admissions. The arbitrator's finding that the third respondent committed sexual harassment was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The arbitrator erred in substituting dismissal with a final written warning, failing to properly balance the seriousness of the misconduct, the harm caused, and the lack of remorse. The dismissal was substantively fair. The Labour Court also erred in granting condonation f…
Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (JA17/2021) [2022] ZALAC 2; [2022] 4 BLLR 324 (LAC); (2022) 43 ILJ 825 (LAC) (27 January 2022)
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Case number
JA17/2021
Judges
Davis, Savage, Kubushi
The Labour Appeal Court found that the Labour Court erred in granting condonation for the late filing of the cross-review application, as the delay was excessive and not adequately explained. On the merits, the Court held that the arbitrator's finding that the third respondent committed sexual harassment was reasonable and supported by the evidence, including the third respondent's own admissions and the failure to challenge the complainant's version in cross-examination. The arbitrator's decision to substitute dismissal with a final written warning was unreasonable, given the seriousness and…
City of Johannesburg v Jacobs NO and Others (JR124/18) [2021] ZALCJHB 12; [2021] 6 BLLR 579 (LC) (8 February 2021)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Case number
JR124/18
Judge
Deane
The court found that the First Respondent correctly identified the employees' misconduct as dishonest assistance to learner licence candidates, which was substantiated by video and documentary evidence. However, the First Respondent failed to provide reasoned justification for procedural flaws and did not appreciate the gravity of the misconduct or its impact on the trust relationship. The absence of evidence supporting procedural irregularities and the seriousness of the misconduct rendered the decision to reinstate the employees irrational and unreasonable. The court held that dismissal was…
Pick n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd v Maluleke and Others (JA26/2019) [2020] ZALAC 39; [2020] 12 BLLR 1229 (LAC) (7 September 2020)
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Case number
JA26/2019
Judges
Phatshoane, Davis, Murphy
The Labour Appeal Court held that the Labour Court erred in interfering with the CCMA arbitration award. The commissioner’s findings that Ms Maluleke’s conduct was dishonest and in breach of company policies were reasonable and supported by the evidence. The length of service and clean record, while relevant, did not outweigh the gravity of the misconduct, which destroyed the trust relationship. The differentiation in sanction between Ms Maluleke and Mr Maphanga was justified by their respective roles and responsibilities. The CCMA award fell within the bounds of reasonableness and should not…
Qalinga v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (PA5/17) [2018] ZALAC 32; [2019] 1 BLLR 40 (LAC) (17 October 2018)
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Case number
PA5/17
Judges
Phatshoane, Sutherland, Kathree-Setiloane
The Labour Appeal Court found that the arbitrator's decision to uphold the dismissal was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The appellant had sole practical access to the storeroom and concealed company stock in various locations, which could not be satisfactorily explained. The absence of an express rule about concealment was immaterial, as the conduct fell under the established prohibition against unauthorised possession. The appellant's persistent acts of dishonesty, lack of remorse, and the trust-based nature of his position justified the sanction of dismissal, despite his long ser…
