How did the labour court recently, in Civil and Power Generation Products (Pty) Ltd v CCMA and Others (2019) 30 SALLR 170 (LC), deal with the issue as to whether or not the requirement of reasonableness (when reviewing an arbitration award) has been met?
In Duncanmec (Pty) Ltd v Gaylard NO and Others 2018 (6) SA 335 (CC); (2018) 39 ILJ 2633 (CC);  12 BLLR 1137 (CC), at paragraphs –, the court succinctly summarised the test as follows:
‘This test means that the reviewing court should not evaluate the reasons provided by the arbitrator with a view to determine whether it agrees with them. That is not the role played by a court in review proceedings. Whether the court disagrees with the reasons is not material.
The correct test is whether the award itself meets the requirement of reasonableness. An award would meet this requirement if there are reasons supporting it. The reasonableness requirement protects parties from arbitrary decisions which are not justified by rational reasons.’
It is settled law that one of the requirements of a lockout is that it is to be preceded by a demand from the employer in respect of a matter of mutual interest. Does this equate to a lockout notice?