MSAULE v UNIVERSITY OF LIMPOPO AND OTHERS [2026] ZALCJHB 123

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 17 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg

Name of Judge(s): Tshisevhe AJ

Summary of Factual Matrix: 

The applicant was employed as a Lecturer by the First Respondent from 1 August 2013. On 10 October 2021, the Head of Department allocated the module General Principles of Criminal Law (CJUA021) to both the applicant and himself as co-lecturers. 

The applicant queried what aspects the HOD would lecture, and was advised the HOD would only intervene when necessary and contribute to assessments, with the applicant remaining primary facilitator. 

The applicant reported concerns to the Director and Dean. When asked to provide assessment papers on 16 March 2021, the applicant indicated he would not participate in module activities as he had escalated his grievance. 

He was subsequently charged with insubordination and neglect of duties, found guilty, and suspended without pay for three months plus a final written warning. 

The arbitrator found no unfair labour practice. The applicant sought review.

Summary of Findings:

"[29] The Constitutional Court settled the issue of test for review of an arbitration award in the case of Sidumo and Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd and Others. The Court at paragraph 110 held that the test for review is whether the decision reached by the Commissioner is one that a reasonable decision maker could not reach in relation to the totality of evidence before him or her."

"[32] Pursuant to the above case law, in order for this Court to interfere with the decision of the arbitrator, I must be convinced that such decision is unreasonable based on the totality of material evidence before her. If such decision falls outside the band of reasonableness, this Court would therefore be left with no option but to correct it."

"[36] In Gold Fields Mining South Africa (Pty) Ltd (Kloof Gold Mine) v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others, the Court rejected a piecemeal or fragmented approach to reviews, where each factor that the commissioner failed to consider is analysed individually and independently, for principally two reasons. The first is that it 'assumes the form of an appeal' and not a review, and the second is that it is mandatory for the reviewing court to consider the totality of the evidence and then decide whether the decision made by the arbitrator is one that a reasonable decision-maker could make."

"[43] I find it abhorrent that a lecturer can refuse to carry out his lecturing duties to the detriment of students, well knowing that 'time wasted never regain' and therefore the finding of the arbitrator cannot be out of kilter in that regard."

"[47] This court further agrees with the finding of the arbitrator that even if the Applicant could have lodged a grievance, which he did not do, he ought to have carried out his duties and continued to have his issues addressed in any manner he deems appropriate, whilst working."

"[53] In casu, the Applicant refused to lecture as instructed, but complained when suspended for 3 months without pay. The Applicant is a very lucky employee, if it were another employer, he would have been dismissed due to the prejudice his conduct caused or likely to be suffered. The Applicant refused to carry out his duties for a period of three (3) months, being February, March and April 2021."

Applying the Sidumo reasonableness test, the Court held that the arbitrator's decision fell within the band of decisions a reasonable decision-maker could reach. The applicant's refusal to perform lecturing duties for three months, to the detriment of students, was inexcusable. Even if a grievance had been lodged, the applicant remained obliged to perform his duties while pursuing redress. The arbitrator properly weighed the totality of evidence, including the unchallenged charge of neglect of duties. No gross irregularity or unreasonable outcome was established.

Order:

"1. The application for review is dismissed. 

2. No order is made as to costs."