SIYANDA BAKGATLA PLATINUM MINE v COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION AND OTHERS [2026] ZALCJHB 119

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 20 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg

Name of Judge(s): Daniels J

Summary of Factual Matrix: 

The third respondent was appointed as section engineer on 1 August 2018. In late March 2021, he was charged with misconduct: (i) conduct unbecoming for appointing a supplier (Fikra) that did not meet safety requirements; (ii) acting against company regulations by not following procurement policy; (iii) gross negligence for taking suppliers underground without induction/training; and (iv) corrupt/fraudulent practices for appointing incompetent suppliers who performed substandard work at inflated rates. 

The applicant's case was that the third respondent motivated for Fikra's appointment, indicating compliance with safety directives, but Fikra charged significantly more than the existing supplier (Premier), performed substandard work requiring re-doing, and lacked a safety file. The third respondent testified he sought savings through Fikra, was unaware of safety induction processes for contractors, did not know the procurement policy, and that another employee (Mlambo) was charged for the same incident but not dismissed. 

The arbitrator found the dismissal substantively unfair and ordered reinstatement with backpay.

Summary of Findings:

"[15] The arbitration process and the resulting arbitration award both constitute administrative action. Accordingly, section 33(1) of the Constitution requires that the process and the outcome must be lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. It is in this context that the review test applicable to arbitration awards issued by the CCMA and Bargaining Councils, was formulated, as follows: is the arbitration award one which no reasonable commissioner could reach on the material before him or her? It is known as the 'reasonableness test.'"

"[19] In Woolworths (Pty) Ltd v CCMA and others the Labour Appeal Court stated that — '[t]he misconduct charge on and for which the employee was arraigned and convicted at the disciplinary enquiry did not necessarily have to be strictly framed in accordance with the wording of the relevant acts of misconduct as listed in the appellant's disciplinary codes, referred to above.... It was sufficient that the wording of the misconduct alleged in the charge-sheet conformed, with sufficient clarity to be understood by the employee, to the substance and import of any one or more of the listed offences.' (emphasis added)"

"[21] As previously explained, through the 'Charge Sheet', the applicant clarified the full extent of the alleged misconduct. The third respondent could have been under no illusion as to the misconduct he allegedly committed. The commissioner was required to decide whether the third respondent committed the alleged misconduct described in the 'notification of alleged transgression' and the 'charge sheet'."

"[22] Among other things, the applicant alleged that the third respondent 'became involved in appointing' a supplier who did not meet safety requirements. Although the commissioner accepted that the third respondent played a crucial role in the appointment of Fikra, he did not consider whether such conduct was negligent."

"[23] There are several other important disputes which the commissioner failed to resolve. The commissioner failed to consider whether Fikra failed to meet the applicant's safety requirements and, if so, whether the third respondent was negligent in that respect. The commissioner did not consider whether the third respondent failed to follow procurement policy. And finally, the commissioner did not decide whether the third respondent took suppliers to work underground without shaft induction and training."

As sucj, the Court held that the arbitrator irregularly adopted an unduly strict interpretation of the charges, failing to consider whether the third respondent committed misconduct not expressly foreshadowed but within the substance of the allegations. The commissioner failed to resolve material disputes: whether Fikra failed to meet safety requirements and whether the third respondent was negligent; whether procurement policy was breached; and whether suppliers were taken underground without induction. 

These errors were material and directly affected the outcome, rendering the award unreasonable. Given the need to reconstruct significant evidence and audio record issues, the matter was referred back for hearing de novo.

Order:

"27.1 The review application is reinstated, 27.2 The arbitration award issued by the second respondent under case reference NWRB1751-21 is reviewed and set aside, 

27.3 The dispute concerning the fairness of the third respondent's dismissal is referred to the CCMA for arbitration de novo before a commissioner other than the second respondent."