Southern African Clothing and Textile Workers Union v Plusnet Geotex and Others (JR1598/22) [2025] ZALCJHB 380 (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
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 also highlights the balance between employee rights and employer responsibilities in the context of 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 both 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 decision was flawed due to a misapplication of the common purpose doctrine and the improper admission of hearsay evidence. The dismissals of 19 employees were found to be substantively and procedurally unfair, leading to an order for their reinstatement and compensation.

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 concluded with the arbitrator finding all employees guilty based on the common purpose doctrine, despite significant inconsistencies in the evidence presented.

THE ISSUES

The court had to decide whether the arbitrator had committed a gross irregularity in his findings, particularly regarding the application of the common purpose doctrine, the admissibility of hearsay evidence, and the overall procedural fairness of the disciplinary process that led to the dismissals.

ANALYSIS

The court analyzed the arbitrator's reasoning, noting that he failed to adequately identify individual culpability among the employees based on the common purpose doctrine. The court emphasized that mere participation in a strike does not equate to involvement in misconduct unless there is clear evidence of individual actions. Additionally, the court found that the arbitrator's provisional admission of hearsay evidence lacked proper legal grounding and did not adhere to the principles outlined in relevant case law.

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 also confirmed the substantive fairness of the dismissals of other employees not mentioned in the order and awarded one month's compensation to 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 when applying the common purpose doctrine. 2. The importance of adhering to procedural fairness in disciplinary hearings, including allowing employees the opportunity to present their cases fully. 3. The proper treatment of hearsay evidence in arbitration, emphasizing that it must be evaluated in accordance with established legal standards to ensure fairness in proceedings.