Anglo American Platinum Limited v AMCU obo Macuacua and Cimela & others [2026] ZALCJHB 396

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 21 October 2026, Labour Court, Johannesburg

Case No: JR331/2024

Name of Judge(s): Maddern AJ

Summary of Factual Matrix:

The two individual employees, processors with eight and ten years' service at the applicant's Rustenburg Base Metal Refiners, a high-risk facility, were working on cells in the Copper Tank House on 1 November 2022 when their supervisor, who was required to isolate the Centre Bay rectifier, locked out a different bay instead. The work area remained live and an arc flash burnt Mr Cimela's trousers. The supervisor was dismissed, and the employees were charged with failing to comply with the De-energise, Isolation, Lock-out and Permit to Work (DILEP) procedure, found guilty and dismissed. The applicant's own investigation revealed a practice on their shift of relying on the supervisor's lock-out and that the employees had received theoretical, but no practical, lock-out training.

A CCMA commissioner found that the employees could not be faulted and that the dismissals were unfair. The employer sought to review and set aside the award, contending that by fixating on training the commissioner had misconceived the enquiry under item 7 of Schedule 8 to the LRA. The issue was whether the award fell within the band of reasonableness.

Summary of Findings:

[29] ‘The commissioner was required to resolve no significant disputes of fact. There was no dispute that the employees received extensive theoretical training in relation to the relevant safety dictates as outlined in the DILEP procedure and in relation to the general principles insofar as they were applied by the Applicant at its Rustenburg Base Metal Refiners facility. There is similarly no dispute that the employees received benefit of no practical training observations (PTO’s) and that this failure was directly attributable to the employees’ supervisor who was the fundamental cause of the incident. This supervisor has been dismissed. There was no evidence before the commissioner to rebut the employees’ contention that they had never locked out and from the totality of the evidence it is quite apparent that the Applicant accepts that the culture within a particular shift of which the employees formed part, was caused by the dismissed supervisor.’

[30] ‘In relation to the fundamental enquiry required of the commissioner, namely determination of the issue set out in Item 7 of Schedule 8 of the LRA it is quite evident from the totality of evidence before the commissioner that: 30.1 The charge as expressed as a failure to comply specifically with the DILEP procedure, which procedure was known to the employees, and the employees had contravened the rules and standards set out in the DILEP procedure, on the specific basis outlined in the evidence. The crucial issue, however, was whether on the totality of evidence, the employees could reasonably be held culpable for the breach of the DILEP procedure. There is a distinct difference between ‘knowing of’ and ‘knowing how’. Put differently, was it reasonable to expect the employees to know how to conduct the lock-out procedure outlined in the DILEP policy in circumstances were they had never done so and from all accounts had not witnessed the supervisor doing so either? They had not received the benefit of any PTOs and the manner in which they performed their duties stretched over a significant period of time, in the case of one of the Applicants for eight years and the other for ten. Ingrained habits, whether good or bad, are hard to break. 30.2 It is evident that the employees received extensive theoretical classroom training and they were then assessed on the theory and, upon successful navigation of the assessment, were then ‘deemed competent’. It is significant however that the DILEP policy in definining ‘competent person’ incorporate a specific reference to ‘practical experience on the required procedures to execute the task’. A similar reference is contained in the definition in respect of ‘individual’, which incorporates a reference specifically to practical experience. The DILEP policy must be construed as a whole. On the evidence there was no dispute that the employees had never actually conducted and performed a lock-out. Further, the employees contended that they had conducted a SLAM, however, it was apparent that the absence of practical training may well have led to their failure to appreciate and thus properly assess the risk in order to manage it pursuant to the conducting of a SLAM. The absence of practical training thus undermined the conducting of the SLAM procedure. 30.3 On the evidence before the commissioner it was quite evident that the deemed competency of the employees was rebutted.’

[31] ‘Whilst the commissioner’s award is not without blemish, fundamentally the commissioner did not misconceive the nature of the enquiry.’

[32] ‘The commissioner did not arrive at an unreasonable result. The award was not one that a reasonable commissioner could not reach.[2]’

[34] ‘In the result the review must be dismissed.’

[35] ‘In respect of costs, the court is mindful of the continued relationship between the parties, and it is appropriate that there be no order as to costs.’

Relief: The application for review was dismissed, with no order as to costs, the Court having regard to the continuing relationship between the parties.

Judgment on SAFLII