Bester v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration & others [2026] ZALCCT 177

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 12 October 2026, Labour Court, Cape Town

Case No: C347/24

Name of Judge(s): May AJ

Summary of Factual Matrix:

The applicant, the head farm manager of the third respondent, Quantum Foods, was dismissed for the unauthorised removal of company property after he put 40 litres of the farm’s diesel into his private vehicle. He contended that he had used the vehicle for business travel, that the previous owner of the farm had authorised the practice, and that he was unaware of any rule requiring prior permission or of the travel-reimbursement policy.

The arbitrator found that a reasonable rule requiring authorisation existed and was known to the applicant (who had himself previously dismissed an employee for similar conduct), that the reimbursement policy was known to him, that the claimed business travel and its necessity had not been proved, and that the misconduct involved dishonesty warranting dismissal. The applicant applied under section 145 of the LRA to review the award on the basis that the arbitrator’s factual and legal findings were erroneous and rendered the award unreasonable.

Summary of Findings:

[9] ‘The review test is whether an arbitrator has misconceived the nature of the enquiry or arrived at an unreasonable result.[1] A result will be considered to be unreasonable if it is one that a reasonable arbitrator could not reach on all the material presented to him or her.[2]’

[10] ‘The review test has a logical chronology. First, it is determined if there is a failure or error on the part of the arbitrator. Second, and where there is such a failure or error, it must be shown that the outcome arrived at by the arbitrator was unreasonable as a result. This reasonableness consideration envisages a determination, based on all the evidence and issues before the arbitrator, as to whether the outcome the arbitrator arrived at can nonetheless be sustained as a reasonable outcome, even if it may be for different reasons or on different grounds.[3] It would only be if the outcome arrived at by the arbitrator cannot be sustained on any grounds, based on that material, and the irregularity, failure or error concerned is the only basis to sustain the outcome the arbitrator arrived at, that the review application would succeed.[4]’

[14] ‘The Applicant’s review grounds challenge the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the arbitrator. The findings made by the arbitrator are however not divorced from the evidence led before him. In fact, they accord with the material properly before him.’

[15] ‘In the Court’s view, it is apparent that the arbitrator was acutely aware of his duties. He assessed the evidence before him in its totality; he considered the reliability and credibility of each witness as well as the probabilities of their versions.’

[16] ‘Whether this Court agrees with those findings or not, is not sufficient for this Court to interfere. After all this is a review and not an appeal and the Court on review is not concerned with factual or legal findings unless the outcome reached by the arbitrator was not one that could reasonably be reached on the evidence and other material properly before the arbitrator. There is a material connection between the evidence and the result, and the result is reasonably supported by the evidence. As such the award is reasonable.’

[17] ‘It follows therefore that the application should be dismissed. The most appropriate order as to costs is that both parties remain responsible for their own costs.’

Relief: The review application was dismissed and each party was ordered to pay its own costs.

Judgment on SAFLII