Sekhukhune Logistics v TASWU obo Maila & others [2026] ZALCJHB 368

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 18 September 2026, Labour Court, Johannesburg

Case No: JR2685/21

Name of Judge(s): Heideman AJ

Summary of Factual Matrix:

Mr Maila, a truck driver employed by Sekhukhune Logistics since October 2019, was dismissed on 21 September 2020 after a disciplinary hearing at which he was found guilty of four counts of negligently damaging the employer's trucks, essentially because prop shafts had fallen off and, on one occasion, a clutch plate had burnt. A bargaining council arbitrator found the dismissal substantively unfair on 24 November 2021, concluding that causation between his conduct and the damage was not established, that the mechanics rather than drivers were responsible for tightening the bolts, and that the employer had not applied progressive discipline. He ordered reinstatement and three months' backpay.

The employer's s 145 review, filed in time with all papers delivered by 6 July 2022, was not enrolled until the employee's representatives applied for a hearing date in February 2023. The employer had furnished no security under s 145(7) and (8) and had not applied for exemption, but asked in its notice of motion that the award be stayed and that it be exempted from security.

Summary of Findings:

[15] ‘In support of its contention, the Applicant refers this court to various parts of the transcribed record, mostly to the evidence of the Applicant’s witnesses. But none of the references to the record made by the Applicant adequately address the arbitrator’s finding of a lack of causation.’

[16] ‘At best, the Applicant alleges that the First Respondent did not dispute his involvement in all four charges. But the reference to the record in support of this contention shows only that the First Respondent concedes that all damage to truck 025 was caused by the prop shaft falling. This is not the same as admitting his involvement in all four charges. On the contrary, the record shows that the First Respondent admitted the damage caused by the falling prop shafts, but he alleged that the prop shafts had fallen before, and he denied that the blame for prop shafts falling should be placed on him.’

[18] ‘Taken as a whole, the arbitrator’s findings that the Applicant had not shown sufficient causation between the conduct of the First Respondent and the falling prop shafts on which charges one to three are based is entirely reasonable. The high watermark of the Applicant’s case in this regard is a bald allegation from its mechanics that the First Respondent ought to know and identify the sound of loosening prop shaft bolts against the roar of a truck engine and know to stop the truck immediately on hearing the loosening bolts. The arbitrator found that the mechanics ought to have tightened the bolts, not the driver. Given the evidence before him, this is entirely reasonable.’

[19] ‘Regarding the First Respondent bringing the truck to a standstill over 9 metres in charge two, the arbitrator’s finding that it was reasonable is also supported by the version of the First Respondent: namely that it was necessary in order for the truck to be stopped safely.’

[20] ‘The arbitrator’s finding with regard to charge four is also fully supported by the fact that it is common cause between the parties that the truck in question was driven by another driver as the business operated day and night. On the facts before the arbitrator, it could not be shown that the burnt clutch plate was caused by the First Respondent’s alleged “bad driving”.’

[22] ‘But the relevance of the arbitrator’s finding on the lack of progressive discipline, read in context, is not a finding on procedural unfairness. Rather, it adds weight to the arbitrator’s finding that the First Respondent could not have been expected to know what a loosening prop shaft sounds like.’

[23] ‘Nowhere in the transcribed record or in the papers before this court does the Applicant dispute the arbitrator’s finding that it did not do anything to help the First Respondent after the first incident. Had the Applicant applied progressive discipline and provided some training to the First Respondent after the first incident, this finding may have been different.’

[24] ‘The arbitrator’s finding on progressive discipline is therefore, once again, wholly supported by the record and adds weight to the arbitrator’s finding that the First Respondent’s dismissal was substantively unfair.’

[25] ‘The Applicant has therefore failed to show that a reasonable arbitrator could not have come to the decision made by the Second Respondent based on the evidence before him.’

[26] ‘The final issue to be considered is that of costs. The Applicant’s case for review has not only failed, but it is also sparsely and poorly set out. This on its own may not be sufficient to warrant a costs order, but there are another two factors which give this court pause to consider it.’

[28] ‘Making matters worse, the Applicant has not provided this court with security in terms of subsections 145(7) and (8) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA). Given the reinstatement award, the Applicant ought to have furnished security equivalent to 24 months’ remuneration.’

[29] ‘No application has been made by the Applicant to exempt it from furnishing security. Rather, the Applicant has included prayers in its Notice of Motion asking that the award be stayed pending the outcome of the review application and that “the Applicant be exempt in terms of Section 145(8)(b) of the Act, from furnishing security”. […] There is no other averment which attempts to justify its exemption from the statutory security requirement.’

[30] ‘But failing to provide security and asking retrospectively that the arbitrator’s reinstatement award be suspended pending the outcome of the review application in the review application itself has made the entire issue academic: the award has effectively been stayed and the Applicant has exempted itself from furnishing the security required in the Act simply by its conduct and failing to adhere to the prescripts of the LRA.’

[34] ‘In this case, the LAC confirmed the principles established in City of Johannesburg v SA Municipal Workers Union on behalf of Monareng and another,[4] namely that should an employer wish to suspend the enforcement of an arbitration award pending the outcome of a review application and be absolved from furnishing security, an application must be made to the Labour Court and a proper case must be made out. The court held that it follows that, as a general rule, an employer is obliged to provide security in accordance with section 145(8) of the LRA unless the Labour Court orders differently.’

[36] ‘The conduct of the Applicant in this matter appears to be precisely the mischief the amendment sought to address. And yet the Applicant has managed to circumvent the application of sections 145(7) and (8) without consequence – paving the way for other employers to do likewise and for the purpose of the amendment to be completely undermined. This cannot be allowed.’

[37] ‘In these circumstances, law and fairness dictate that a punitive costs order is warranted.’

Relief: The review application was dismissed and the arbitrator's award upheld: Sekhukhune Logistics must reinstate Mr Maila with retrospective effect, on terms no less favourable, with three months' backpay. He is to tender his services on 20 October 2026. The remuneration due, quantified at R671,000 before deductions, is payable to the bargaining council before that date. The employer must pay the costs of the review on the attorney and client scale.

Judgment on SAFLII