Southern African Clothing and Textile Workers’ Union v Plusnet Geotex and Others (JR1598/22) [2025] ZAGPJHC 850 (28 August 2025)

Case Note

Southern African Clothing and Textile Workers’ Union v Plusnet Geotex, A Division of Master Plastics Ltd and Others
JR 1598/22
Heard: 30 April 2025; Delivered: 28 August 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its implications for the interpretation of unfair dismissal in the context of collective actions during a protected strike. The judgment addresses significant issues regarding the application of the common purpose doctrine, the admissibility of hearsay evidence, and the procedural fairness of disciplinary hearings. The ruling sets a precedent for how arbitrators should evaluate evidence and the standards required for establishing misconduct in collective labor disputes.

Cases Cited

• Sidumo and Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd and Others 2008 (2) BCLR 158 (CC)
• CUSA v Tao Ying Metal Industries and Others 2009 (2) SA 204 (CC)
• NUMSA obo Nganezi v Dunlop Mixing and Technical Services (Pty) Ltd and Others 2019 (5) SA 354 (CC)
• R v Blom 1939 AD 288
• NUMSA obo Aubrey Dhludhlu and 147 Others 2023 (1) SA 338 (CC)
• AMCU and others v KPMM Roads and Earthworks 2019 (4) BLLR 340 (LAC)
• CTP Gravure (Pty) a division of CTP Limited v Statutory Council for Printing Newspaper and Packaging Industry and Others (DA 04/2024) [2025] ZALAC 16 (20 March 2025)

Legislation Cited

• Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
• Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988

Rules of Court Cited

• None specified.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The Labour Court reviewed an arbitration award concerning the dismissal of 50 employees from Plusnet Geotex, following a protected strike. The court found that the arbitrator had committed gross irregularities in applying the common purpose doctrine and in admitting hearsay evidence. The court ultimately ruled that the dismissals of 19 employees were substantively and procedurally unfair, ordering their reinstatement with back pay.

Key Issues

The key legal issues addressed in this case include the following: 1. The application of the common purpose doctrine in determining individual culpability for collective misconduct. 2. The admissibility and treatment of hearsay evidence in arbitration proceedings. 3. The procedural fairness of the disciplinary hearings conducted by the employer.

Held

The court held that the arbitrator's findings were unreasonable and that the dismissals of the 19 employees were both substantively and procedurally unfair. The court ordered their reinstatement and back pay, while confirming the fairness of dismissals for other employees not implicated in the misconduct.

THE FACTS

The case arose from the dismissal of 50 employees who participated in a protected strike organized by the Southern African Clothing and Textile Workers Union. Following the strike, the employer alleged misconduct, including violence and intimidation, leading to the dismissal of the employees. The arbitration proceedings revealed disputes over the identification of individuals involved in the alleged misconduct, with some employees denying any wrongdoing. The arbitrator ultimately found all dismissed employees guilty based on the common purpose doctrine, leading to the union's application for review.

THE ISSUES

The court had to decide whether the arbitrator had committed a gross irregularity in his decision-making process, particularly regarding the application of the common purpose doctrine, the admissibility of hearsay evidence, and the procedural fairness of the disciplinary hearings. The court also needed to determine the appropriate remedy for the unfair dismissals.

ANALYSIS

The court analyzed the arbitrator's reasoning, noting that he failed to adequately consider the individual circumstances of the employees and the evidence presented. The court emphasized that mere participation in a strike does not equate to culpability for violence unless there is clear evidence of individual involvement. The court also criticized the arbitrator's provisional admission of hearsay evidence, which lacked proper evaluation and clarity, leading to confusion during the proceedings.

REMEDY

The court ordered the reinstatement of the 19 employees found to have been unfairly dismissed, along with back pay equivalent to 36 months' remuneration. The court confirmed the fairness of dismissals for other employees not mentioned in the order and provided compensation for those whose dismissals were deemed procedurally unfair.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The judgment established several key legal principles, including: 1. The necessity for clear evidence of individual misconduct in collective actions. 2. The importance of procedural fairness in disciplinary hearings, particularly in allowing employees to present their cases. 3. The proper application of the common purpose doctrine, requiring evidence of individual awareness and intent to participate in misconduct.