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?

Section 41(2) of the BCEA regulates the entitlement of an employee, dismissed for reasons based on the employer’s operational requirements, to severance pay.

In terms of s41(4) of the BCEA, an employee, who unreasonably refused to accept the employer’s offer of alternative employment with that employer or any other employer, is not entitled to severance pay ito s41(2).

How does the assistance provided by the retrenching employer to a retrenched employee affect such employee’s entitlement to severance pay?

What is the short test to be applied to determine whether there is compliance with the reasonable decision-maker test?

When determining whether or not the arbitrator of the CCMA or bargaining council behaved like a reasonable decision-maker, what are the ‘questions to be asked’?

What is the test recently applied to determine whether an arbitration award should be set aside on review?

In the scenario where a group of employees, participating in a demonstration, picket, strike, etc, are participating in unlawful conduct, but a number of other employees, who are also participating in such demonstration, picket, strike, etc, are not participating in such unlawful conduct, will the employer be entitled to obtain an interdict against both groups of such employees?