Skip to main content

Article 31/2021

Labour Edge

In general terms, the determination of the fairness of a dismissal requires an arbitrator to form a value judgment, having regard to the interests of both the employer and the employee, and to achieve a balanced and equitable assessment of the fairness of the sanction.  What are the types of factors to be taken into account in determining whether the employer had thus acted fairly in deciding to dismiss an employee?


  1. the importance of the rule that had been breached (seriousness of the misconduct);
  2. the reason the employer imposed the sanction of dismissal;
  3. the explanation presented by the employee for the misconduct;
  4. the harm caused by the employee’s conduct;
  5. whether additional training and instruction may result in the employee not repeating the misconduct;
  6. the service record of the employee;
  7. the breakdown of the trust/employment relationship between the employer and employee;
  8. the existence or not of dishonesty;
  9. the possibility of progressive discipline;
  10. the existence or not of remorse;
  11. the job function of the employee; and
  12. the employer’s disciplinary code and procedure (Sidumo (supra), at paragraph [78]; National Commissioner of the SA Police Service v Myers and Others (2012) 33 ILJ 1417 (LAC), at paragraph [82]; Bridgestone SA (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Metalworkers of SA and Others (2016) 37 ILJ 2277 (LAC), at paragraphs [17]–[18]; Woolworths (Pty) Ltd v SA Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union and Others (2016) 37 ILJ 2831 (LAC), at paragraph [14]; Msunduzi Municipality v Hoskins (2017) 38 ILJ 582 (LAC), at paragraph [30]; Eskom Holdings Ltd v Fipaza and Others (2013) 34 ILJ 549 (LAC), at paragraph [54]; Samancor Chrome Ltd (Tubatse Ferrochrome) v Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (2011) 32 ILJ 1057 (LAC), at paragraph [34]; Mutual Construction Co Tvl (Pty) Ltd v Ntombela NO and Others (2010) 31 ILJ 901 (LAC), at paragraphs [37]–[38]; Fidelity Cash Management Service v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (2008) 29 ILJ 964 (LAC); [2008] 3 BLLR 197 (LAC), at paragraph [94]).

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?