Skip to main content

Article 11/2025

The labour appeal court, in Goldfields Mining SA (Pty) Ltd (Kloof Gold Mine) v CCMA (2013) 24 SALLR 41 (LAC), firstly, identified the questions to be avoided when a matter is taken on review and, secondly, the questions to be asked during a review process.

What are these respective questions to be asked in avoiding a piecemeal approach to the factors to determine unreasonableness?

_____________________________________

QUESTIONS TO BE AVOIDED

  • Failure to mention a material fact in the award?
  • Does the award fail to deal with an issue that has a material bearing on the dispute?
  • Failure to evaluate or consider facts presented at the arbitration?

QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED

  • Were the parties given a full opportunity to have their say with regard to the dispute?
  • Did the arbitrator correctly identify the dispute required to be arbitrated?
  • Did the arbitrator understand the nature of the dispute required to be arbitrated?
  • Did the arbitrator deal with the substantive merits of the dispute?
  • Is the decision one that another arbitrator could reasonably arrive at, based on the evidence presented?

Precautionary suspensions

In the public sector, the Senior Management Service Handbook (SMS Handbook) directly addresses precautionary suspensions and the 60-day time limit.

Clause 2.7(2)(c) of the SMS Handbook provides that ‘If a member is suspended or transferred as a precautionary measure, the employer must hold a disciplinary hearing within 60 days. The chair of the hearing must then decide on any further postponement.’

Regulation 6 of the Local Government: Disciplinary Regulations Senior Managers, 2010 (Regulations) provides for the precautionary suspension of senior municipal employees and Regulation 6(6)(a) provides: ‘If a senior is suspended, a disciplinary hearing must commence within three months after the date of suspension, failing which the suspension will automatically lapse.’

What are the principles governing a determination of the question as to whether or not a senior municipal employee’s suspension automatically lapses in terms of the aforesaid Regulation 6(6)(a)?

Obviously, the answers to the aforesaid question are very relevant in the private sector where, firstly, a collective agreement regulates a similar process or, alternatively, such contractual rights have been created between the parties, to be enforced in terms of s77(3) of the BCEA.

In the previous article, we dealt with the consequences of a plant level collective agreement with a definite beginning and end date. We indicated to you that, in line with s23(2) of the LRA, and an analysis of the relevant case law, that, once such a collective agreement reaches its expiry date, it expires and is no longer of any force or effect. In this article, we deal with the scenario where a plant level collective agreement is concluded for an indefinite period and the employer gave notice to terminate same.

What are the consequences when a party to a plant level collective agreement, concluded for an indefinite time period, gives notice to terminate such collective agreement?

In terms of s23(2), a collective agreement binds, for the whole period of the collective agreement, every person so bound in terms of s23(1)(c) (the members of a registered trade union and the employers who are members of a registered employers’ organisation who are a party to the collective agreement, if the collective agreement regulates the terms and conditions of employment, or the conduct of the employers and employees) who was a member at the time it became binding, or who becomes a member after it became binding (irrespective of whether or not that person continues to be a member of such trade union or employers’ organisation for the duration of the collective agreement).

What is the relevant case law development as to a plant level collective agreement that has an expiry date, i e does such collective agreement continue to be of force and effect after such expiry date?