Association of Mineworkers and Construction Workers Union obo Matebele and Others v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1895/21) [2025] ZALCJHB 163 (16 May 2025)

Case Note

Case Name: Association of Mineworkers and Construction Workers Union (AMCU) Obo Matebele and 3 Others v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Mashegoane, M.A. N.O. v IPP Mining and Materials Handling
Citation: Case No. JR 1895/21
Date: Heard on 8 May 2025 and Delivered on 16 May 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable because it addresses complex and novel issues regarding jurisdiction in dismissal disputes arising from unprotected industrial actions. The judgment examines whether employees dismissed for alleged misconduct during an unprotected strike must refer their disputes to the Labour Court, or if the CCMA retains jurisdiction to arbitrate the matter. Its significance lies in clarifying the interpretation of section 191(5) of the Labour Relations Act, particularly in distinguishing between dismissal grounds and the procedural steps required after conciliation.

The ruling also explores the employer’s inconsistent application of disciplinary measures for differing forms of misconduct during the same industrial action. This assessment has considerable implications for the administration of justice in labour relations, ensuring the correct forum handles disputes where statutory frameworks create potential overlaps in jurisdiction. The decision is influential for future cases involving the balance of authority between the CCMA and the Labour Court.

Furthermore, the judgment contributes to the broader discourse on how legislative wording, such as the use of “may” in statutory provisions, informs the procedural rights of employees confronting dismissal disputes. It reinforces the necessity for courts and arbitrators to engage in an objective determination of the true cause of dismissal.

Cases Cited

Meyer v WC Butler trading as Wack-Em [2000] 5 BLLR 600 (Labour Court)
Ceramic Industries Ltd trading as Betta Sanitary Ware versus National Construction Building & Allied Workers Union
National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and others versus Aveng Trident Steel (a division of Aveng Africa (Pty) Ltd)

Legislation Cited

Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, as amended (including specific reference to section 191(5), section 191(12) and section 141(1) of the Act)

Rules of Court Cited

No specific rules of court were cited in this judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The case concerns whether the CCMA possesses jurisdiction to arbitrate disputes arising from the dismissal of employees for alleged misconduct during an unprotected strike. The central issue is whether the presence of unprotected industrial action as a factor in dismissal automatically mandates the transfer of jurisdiction to the Labour Court, as required by section 191(5) of the Labour Relations Act.

The judgment explores the statutory framework governing industrial action and dismissal, emphasizing that the mere participation in unprotected industrial action does not automatically confer jurisdiction on the Labour Court. Instead, the dismissal dispute must be causally connected to the alleged misconduct to trigger the statutory referral requirement.

The court carefully distinguished between the form in which allegations were presented and the substantive grounds for dismissal, ultimately reinforcing the principle that judicial determination must focus on the objective truth of the reason for dismissal rather than on its procedural framing.

Key Issues

The key legal issues addressed include whether the CCMA has jurisdiction over dismissal disputes arising from misconduct during an unprotected strike, and if not, whether the dispute should be referred to the Labour Court based on the statutory provisions of the Labour Relations Act. The judgment also considers the employer’s differential treatment of employees for similar acts of misconduct.

Held

The court held that the CCMA does not have jurisdiction to arbitrate the dismissal dispute under section 191(5)(b) of the Labour Relations Act when the dismissal grounds are not strictly limited to those specified. The decision emphasized that the dispute must be objectively linked to the dismissal reason listed in the relevant statutory subsections. This holding reaffirms that disputes of this nature should be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication unless the parties agree otherwise.

THE FACTS

The facts of the case reveal that the employer had been contracted to provide excavation services to a mining operation following the replacement of a previous service provider. A violent strike and subsequent unprotected industrial action had significant consequences, setting the stage for the dispute. The incident erupted when a group of employees, after a period of industrial unrest, participated in a work stoppage which included blocking access to the employer's premises.

The disputed dismissals stemmed from allegations of misconduct during the unprotected strike. The employer accused four employees—who were also trade union representatives—of sabotage, interference with security personnel, and obstruction of evidence. The allegations were uniformly framed for all four employees, with a minor variation for two of them concerning persistent bullying tactics.

In the background of the dispute, the employees had not claimed that their dismissal was solely based on their participation in the unprotected strike. Instead, they contended that they were unfairly dismissed for misconduct they denied committing. This factual matrix raised pivotal questions about the causal connection between the unprotected strike and the dismissal as well as the appropriate forum for resolving the dispute.

THE ISSUES

The legal issues in dispute include whether an employee dismissed for alleged misconduct during participation in an unprotected strike must have their case referred to the Labour Court or whether the CCMA retains jurisdiction to arbitrate. The case required the court to assess if the statutory language in section 191(5) of the Labour Relations Act mandates referral to the Labour Court when the dismissal’s underlying reason is not directly the participation in an unprotected strike.

Another issue is the evaluation of the employer’s inconsistent approach in addressing different types of misconduct by employees, thereby complicating the determination of the true cause of dismissal. This raised concerns about fairness and the objective application of the statutory requirements that govern dispute referral. Finally, the court had to consider whether the objective test for determining the true reason for dismissal is met in the context of these unprecedented circumstances.

ANALYSIS

The court’s analysis focused on a close reading of section 191(5) of the Labour Relations Act, with special emphasis on the use of the word “may” which does not offer an alternative route for dispute resolution but rather directs the next appropriate step if conciliation fails. The analysis made clear that dismissal disputes must be referred to the Labour Court unless there is a valid agreement or statutory provision conferring jurisdiction on the CCMA. This interpretation circumvents any misapprehension that an employee can unilaterally choose between the two forums when specific statutory conditions are present.

In examining the issues, the court applied an objective test to determine the actual cause of dismissal, taking into consideration both the allegations made and the broader factual matrix. Recognizing that the employees challenged their dismissal on the grounds of alleged misconduct—not solely their participation in an unprotected industrial action—the court scrutinized whether the misconduct and the strike were intrinsically linked in such a way as to trigger a jurisdictional shift to the Labour Court.

The reasoning further engaged previous case law, including the ruling in Meyer v WC Butler trading as Wack-Em, to underscore that the CCMA lacks jurisdiction unless the statutory grounds for referral are unequivocally met. The decision reaffirmed that the true substance of the dispute must guide jurisdictional determination, rather than its procedural presentation.

REMEDY

The remedy in this case entails that the dismissal dispute be correctly referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The court’s order clarifies that, because the alleged reasons for dismissal do not strictly align with those listed in section 191(5)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, the CCMA lacks jurisdiction in this matter. The employees are therefore directed to continue their dispute resolution process in the appropriate forum—the Labour Court—unless an alternative agreement to confer jurisdiction on the CCMA is established in accordance with section 141(1) of the Act.

By delineating the limits of the CCMA’s authority, the court’s remedy ensures that disputes are handled in a manner that is consistent with statutory imperatives, thereby enhancing the procedural fairness in handling dismissal disputes. This resolution underscores the importance of a careful examination of the factual circumstances against the statutory criteria for jurisdiction.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The case establishes several key legal principles. First, the decision reinforces that an employee’s participation in unprotected industrial action does not automatically entitle them to have a dismissal dispute adjudicated by the Labour Court unless the statutory grounds for referral are met. Second, it is affirmed that the true cause of dismissal must be determined objectively, focusing on the substance rather than the form of the allegations.

Additionally, the ruling clarifies that the CCMA is bound by the framing of the dispute as presented by the parties; however, its jurisdiction is limited to those cases where the statutory framework explicitly provides for it. Finally, the judgment highlights the importance of ensuring that any divergence in disciplinary treatment among employees is subject to rigorous judicial scrutiny, thereby upholding the principles of fairness and consistency in the resolution of labour disputes.