About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2019
>>
[2019] ZALCJHB 243
|
|
Mphaphuli v Ramotshela NO and Others (JR1160/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 243; (2020) 41 ILJ 242 (LC) (17 September 2019)
THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Reportable
Of
interest to judges
Case
no: JR1160/17
In
the matter between
:
AZWIITEI
AWELANI MPHAPHULI
Applicant
and
MATTHEWS
RAMOTSHELA
N.O
First
Respondent
THE
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION
MEDIATION
AND ARBITRATION (CCMA) Second
Respondent
EXXARO
COST LIMITED
Third Respondent
Heard:
14 August 2019
Delivered:
17 September 2019
Summary:
Review application – breach of a zero tolerance safety policy
is a serious misconduct –
testing positive for alcohol
following a breathalyser test – avoiding a follow up test –
entering the mine premises
to perform duties when the state of
sobriety was questionable – dismissal is justifiable.
JUDGMENT
NKUTHA–NKONTWANA.
J
Introduction
[1]
This is an
application in terms of section 145 of the Labour Relations Act
[1]
(LRA). The applicant seeks an order to review and set aside the
arbitration award of the second respondent (commissioner) issued
under case number LP646-17 dated 16 May 2017. The first respondent,
Mr Matthews Ramotshela (commissioner), ruled that the applicant’s
dismissal was substantively fair.
[2]
The applicant is mainly challenging the reasonableness
of the
commissioner’s award.
Background
[3]
The applicant was employed by the third respondent as
Head of
Production: Coal Beneficiation, a senior position. The third
respondent is running coal mine operations.
[4]
The applicant was summoned to a disciplinary enquiry
to answer to the
following charges:
‘
2.
Charge(s):
It
is alleged that you committed the following offences(s):
Contravention
of clause 7.1 read with the Exxaro’s Zero Tolerance Management
Instruction and 3.1 of the Disciplinary Code
and Procedure.
3.
Particulars of the charge(s):
Charge
1
It
is alleged that:
On/or
about 21 November 2016 whilst reporting for duty you were randomly
selected and tested for alcohol during which event you
tested
positive for alcohol. Despite having tested positive for alcohol you
still proceeded to drive into the mine and ignored
the security
officers’ attempts to prevent you from entering the mine. When
further attempts to reach you telephonically
were made, you did not
answer to any of the telephone calls out through to your work
allocated cell phone.
By
testing positive for alcohol you were in contravention of the Exxaro
Zero Tolerance Management Instruction which clearly identifies
alcohol related cases as those that are covered by the Company’s
zero tolerance approach. Your conduct as described above
amounts to
improper behaviour damaging the interest of the company especially
given your position as a senior member of management.
Furthermore,
your conduct of defying the security officer’s instructions to
stop and your proceeding into the mine after testing
positive for
alcohol, was in contravention of
regulation 4.7.1
of the
Mine, Health
and Safety Amendment Act 74 of 2008
which provides that ‘no
person in a state of intoxication or any other condition which may
render or be likely to render
him incapable of taking care of himself
or a person under his charge shall not be allowed to enter the
workings of a mine or be
in proximity of any working place or near
any machinery on the surface of the mine or at a works’. The
company regards this
testing positive for alcohol as one such
condition which may render or be likely to render you incapable of
taking care of yourself
and/or person under your care.’
Charge
2
It
is alleged that:
On
21 November 2016 you acted dishonestly in contravention of clause 3.1
of the Disciplinary Code in your dealing with the company’s
investigating officer. It is alleged that when questioned about the
whereabouts of your cell phones on 21 November 2016, you lied
and
told the investigating officer that both your cell phones were at
home. This statement turned out to be false and your cell
phones were
found in your motor vehicle which was parked in the mine premises.
These facts were admitted in your statement dated
21 November 2016.
Please
be warned that the Company regards your conduct as described above in
a very serious light as it has the potential of damaging
the trust
relationship that should exists between the Company and you, as a
senior manager. Accordingly, a guilt finding may result
in your
dismissal.’
[5]
The applicant pleaded guilty to charge 1 and not guilty
to charge 2.
He was found guilty in respect of both charges and consequently
dismissed. The applicant challenged the substantive
fairness of his
dismissal by referring a dispute to the second respondent, the
Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration
(CCMA). He
requested that the dispute be arbitrated following the unsuccessful
conciliation. The parties agreed during the pre-arbitration
hearing
to drop charge 2.
Arbitration
proceedings
[6]
The record of the disciplinary enquiry was admitted into
evidence by
agreement between the parties. As such, the only issue that was in
dispute was whether there was an attempt by the
security officer to
prevent the applicant from entering the mine premises.
[7]
The third respondent accordingly led the evidence of
three witnesses,
Messrs Jan Ntini (Mr Ntini), Eric Manaka (Mr Manaka) and Mr Phethani
Ravele (Mr Ravele). Mr Ntini testified that
he was the security
officer who stopped the applicant for a random alcohol test. He
clocked in the applicant using his access card
and thereafter he gave
the applicant a breathalyser. The applicant blew into the
breathalyser and handed it back to him. The applicant
proceeded to
drive into the mine premises without waiting for the test results.
[8]
Mr Ntini attempted to stop the applicant. He also signalled
to his
colleague, Mr Manaka, who was at the loading zone where the applicant
had stopped to pick up a passenger. Mr Manaka could
not figure out
which motor vehicle he had to stop as there were two vehicles at the
loading zone. Mr Manaka confirmed this evidence.
[9]
Mr Ntini reported the incident to his supervisor, Mr
Charles
Mokgokong, who instructed Mr Simon Senaka to transport him to the
applicant’s office. They did not find the applicant
in his
office and tried to contact him by way of his cell phones. The first
number they called was on voice mail and the second
number rang but
was dropped. Upon second attempt, the second number went to voice
mail as well.
[10]
Mr Ntini explained that it was not the first time he administered an
alcohol test on the applicant and previously he waited for the
results before entering the mine premises. As such, he expected him
to wait for the results.
[11]
Mr Ntini was adamant during cross examination that there was no need
for him to tell the applicant to wait for the alcohol test results as
he, the applicant, knew that he had to wait for the results
before
entering the mine premises. Mr Ntini also rejected the applicant’s
version that was put to him that, upon entering
the mine premises,
the applicant went straight to conduct an inspection; Hence he was
not at his office.
[12]
Mr Ravele testified that the applicant came to his office at about
06h10
and asked for a glass of water. They spent some time chatting
until about 10h00. His cross examination was solely on the accuracy
of the time the applicant arrived at his office. He stood by his
evidence in chief that the applicant arrived at about 06h10.
[13]
The applicant closed his case without leading any evidence to
challenge
the evidence of Messrs Ntini and Ravele. The only record of
the version of his defence against the charges is contained in a
handwritten
statement he had prepared on the date of the incident.
That statement was admitted into evidence as part of the agreed
bundle of
documents that was handed in during the arbitration. In
fact, counsel for the applicant, Mr Cook, submitted that there was no
dispute
as to the authenticity and the contents of the documents
which included the record of the disciplinary enquiry.
[14]
The
applicant’s statement can be summarised as follows:
[2]
14.1.
On the morning of 21 November 2016, at about 05h55 he was asked to
take a breathalyser
test at the entrance of mine which he did.
14.2.
He proceeded to enter into the mine premises without waiting for the
results. The security
screamed at him but he drove off as he thought
the security was screaming at someone else.
14.3.
He went to the plant to do inspections in stockpiles. Thereafter, he
went to a meeting
with Mr Ravele.
14.4.
He switched off his cell phones and left them in his car. However, he
told the investigating
officer that he had left his cell phones at
home, which was not true.
14.5.
He had family problems since 2014. He was divorced and his children
were putting a huge
strain on him and his new family life. He did see
the Social Services with his children up until 2015 but he left the
program early.
14.6.
He seriously needed help with his impulsive reaction to minor things
and not taking into
consideration the consequences of his action. He
was willing to see the Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) for help.
14.7.
He conceded that he could be charged for alcohol transgression and he
would plead guilty
because he did drink alcohol the previous night.
14.8.
He took accountability for his actions which he conceded that were
wrong.
[15]
The same statement was admitted into evidence during the disciplinary
enquiry as the applicant did not testify in his defence even during
those proceedings.
[16]
It is clear
from the record of the disciplinary enquiry that the focus was on the
sanction since the applicant had pleaded guilty
to charge 1. The
chairperson of the disciplinary enquiry considered,
inter
alia
,
the following uncontested evidence of the third respondent in
relation to the applicant’s previous similar transgression
as
indicative of a pattern that he (the applicant) was not a stranger to
discipline:
[3]
16.1.
On 17 December 2009, the applicant was found guilty and issued with a
final written warning
on a charge of being under the influence of
drugs/alcohol while on duty.
16.2.
On 22 October 2015, the applicant was found guilty and issued with a
final written warning
on charges of testing positive for alcohol on
19 September 2015. It was also alleged that even in that instance the
applicant drove
away without waiting for the results and the third
respondent’s Risk Management battled to get hold of him.
16.3.
The applicant refused the third respondent’s offer to assist
him after testing positive
for alcohol on 19 September 2015.
[17]
The chairperson of the disciplinary enquiry also considered the
evidence
of the applicant’s witnesses who testified in
mitigation of the sanction. All of them confirmed that the applicant
had family
problems and believed that the third respondent could help
him.
[18]
The chairperson recommended a sanction of dismissal in respect of
both
charges.
[19]
In the arbitration proceedings, the applicant challenged the finding
of guilty in respect of charge 1, despite having pleaded guilty
during the disciplinary enquiry. Notwithstanding, as stated above,
he
still relied on his written statement and the record of the
disciplinary enquiry.
[20]
The crux of the applicant’s impugn in those proceedings was
that
the third respondent failed to prove that he was under the
influence of alcohol or was in a state of intoxication or any other
condition that could have rendered or likely to render him incapable
of taking care of himself or of any other person.
Failure
to lead evidence
[21]
In
Bargaining
Council for Manufacturing Industry, KwaZulu-Natal v VKD Marketing CC
and Others
[4]
,
the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) held that an adverse inference will be
drawn against a party failing to testify only if the evidence
of the
other party calls for a reply. That is typical in the present matter.
[22]
Mr Ntini testified that the applicant had been subjected to the
alcohol
tests before and duly waited for the results before entering
the mine premises. Also his version that he could not be located
after
he entered the mine premises because he went to conduct
inspections was put to question by Mr Ravele’s evidence.
[23]
Even though the applicant had a right not to testify in his defence,
the general rules of evidence dictate that he ought to have led
evidence in rebuttal of the third respondent’s evidence,
particularly the evidence of Messrs Ntini and Ravele. In the absence
of the applicant’s evidence in rebuttal, that evidence
remained
unchallenged. The commissioner was spot on in this regard.
Entering
the premises
[24]
Conveniently,
the parties, together with the commissioner, had agreed that the
third respondent’s policies dealing with alcohol
offenses were
common cause.
[5]
The policy on
Prevention of Intoxicating Substances (Alcohol Policy) pertinently
states in paragraph 7.6 that testing for intoxicating
substances
will,
inter
alia
,
be conducted:
‘
7.6.5
When nominated by the system generated randomizers for random testing
for alcohol or drugs (yellow/amber light or alarm
when clocking at
the access/exit control points for alcohol and SAP/Honeywell
nomination list for drug testing). Random testing
is compulsory and
must be done immediately (in work time).’
[25]
Clearly, Mr Ntini was correct when he explained that he had to clock
in the applicant first before he could administer the alcohol test as
the random selection was done by the system upon clocking
in.
Therefore, there is no merit in the version that was put to him
during his cross examination to the effect that he had granted
the
applicant access to the premises of the mine by swiping his access
card. In any event, Mr Ntini’s evidence in this regard
was
never challenged and must stand.
[26]
The applicant admitted that he was aware that he had to wait for the
test results and that he did not heed Mr Ntini’s attempt to
stop him. Strangely, the applicant seemed to have been under the
impression that Mr Ntini was screaming at someone else. However, he
did not proffer any explanation as to what informed his thinking
because at that moment he had just drove off without waiting for the
results of his alcohol test and Mr Ntini was clearly trying
to
prevent him from proceeding.
[27]
Nothing turns on the second attempt to stop the applicant when he was
at the loading zone because by that time he was aware that he had
breached the Alcohol Policy by not waiting for the test results
and
ignoring Mr Ntini’s first attempt to stop him from entering the
mine premises.
[28]
The commissioner correctly found that the applicant was fully aware
that
he had to wait for the test results and entering the mine
premises without the knowledge of his results was a deliberate
attempt
to circumvent the inquiry into his state of sobriety.
Zero
Tolerance Safety Policy
[29]
Indeed, the third respondent’s case was not that the applicant
was under the influence of alcohol or intoxicated as submitted by Mr
Cook. However, the prescripts that the applicant allegedly
offended
are instructive. The Alcohol Policy provides:
‘
7.5
Policy and legislation
7.5.1
No person will be allowed to be on the premises of GGC (Exxaro)
whilst under the influence of any intoxicating
substance.
7.5.2
An employee who tests positive for any intoxicating substance will be
dealt with in accordance with the
Exxaro disciplinary code (Section
7.1) and can/may also be charged criminally…
7.5.3
Any person contravening any of these regulations will be/may be
handed over to the local SAPS for criminal
prosecution.
7.6…
7.7…
7.8
Testing procedure
…
7.8.1
the alcohol test must be carried out within 25 Minutes after the
allegation was made that a person is suspected
to be under the
influence of intoxicating substance.
7.8.2 …
7.8.3 …
7.8.4 …
7.9
Procedure after testing
7.9.1
When the outcome of the test is positive, the Risk Control Official
on duty will make necessary arrangement
for the person to be sent
home for the rest of the shift. Necessary disciplinary actions will
be initiated by risk control and
steps will be taken against all
offenders. An employee will receive remuneration only for the time
worked on his/her shift if any.
7.10
Procedure to follow when a person refuses to be tested
When a person refuses to
be tested for any intoxicating substance or delays the process e.g.
by running away, it will be assumed
that for all purposes that he/she
is positive for alcohol and/or mind altering drugs and will be dealt
with accordingly. (statements
of all persons present at the scene
will be taken). In cases where persons avoid testing by any means one
(1) day/shift unpaid
leave will be applicable. Such person will also
be charged for refusing to comply with a legal and fair instruction.
Management
reserves a right to retest such a person before access to
the GGC will be allowed.
7.11
…
7.12.
Rehabilitation
7.12.1 After
disciplinary hearing where a person is found guilty of abusing
intoxicating substance, Management will offer
assistance for
rehabilitation…If a person knows that they have a problem,
he/she can request for assistance with rehabilitation
before getting
to the unfortunate situation of a disciplinary hearing.
7.12.2 Refusal of
rehabilitation will be recorded during inquiries and will be used as
an aggravating factor with a second
offence which will most probably
lead to dismissal.’
[30]
Whilst the Zero Tolerance Safety Policy provides:
2.
Instruction
After
research on the history of Exxaro and even Kumba Resources, it was
identified that the elements of the 13 Zero Tolerance Safety
Rules
contributed to the majority of all fatalities and serious injury
related incidents in the company.
Exxaro’s
intent of implementing these rules is merely to highlight what
already exists in Legislation, company procedures,
rules and policies
and to protect the Health and Safety of all Exxaro employees and
contractors.
In
the interest of Health and Safety of all employees and contractors,
Exxaro will follow a ZERO TOLERANCE APPROACH and will apply
Consequence Management against employees and contractors
transgressing these Safety Rules.
The
Disciplinary Code (Section 7) makes provision for when safety
regulations, policies, procedures and practices are contravened.
Management has identified 13 important aspects of safety, which
resort under this section. Offences regarding these crucial aspects
will be referred to as Zero Tolerance Rules.
The
Disciplinary process must always be followed in the case of
non-adherence to the Zero Tolerance Safety Rules by an employee.
Attention is also drawn to the fact that a transgression of any one
of these offences can even in the event of first offender lead
to
dismissal
.
These
Exxaro Zero Tolerance Rules should not be seen as exhaustive list and
any Health and Safety related infringement outside the
confines of
this list will lead to disciplinary action and if found guilty could
be dismissal unless there are compelling mitigating
factors, which
could lead to a lesser sanction as an alternative to dismissal.
Disciplinary
charges, related to the Exxaro Zero Tolerance Rules, should therefore
be based on Section 7.1 and the applicable rule
transgressed.
EXXARO
ZERO TOLERANCE SAFETY RULES:
1.
DRUGS AND ALCOHOL (Sec.5)
No
person may enter or intend to enter the mine premises and work areas
under the influence of an alcohol or illegal substance
. No person
may be found in possession of alcohol or illegal substances on the
mine premises and work area.’ (Emphasis added)
[31]
The above
policies give effect to the Regulation 4.1.7 of the Mine, Health and
Safety Amendment
[6]
which
provide that:
‘
No
person in a state of intoxication or any other condition which may
render or be likely to render him incapable of taking care
of himself
or a person under his charge shall not be allowed to enter the
workings of a mine or be in proximity of any working
place or near
any machinery on the surface of the mine or at a works, and any
person who may have entered the workings of a mine
or who is found in
the proximity of any workings of a mine or any machinery on the
surface of a mine or at any works in a state
of intoxication may be
arrested immediately by a manager or some person dully appointed by
him and be immediately handed over to
the police, and shall deemed to
be guilty of an offence under these regulations.’
[32]
It is not disputed that Regulation 4.1.7 places a duty on the third
respondent
to ensure that its operations are undertaken in a safe
environment and to exclude or prevent any one who is not in control
of his/her
faculties from entering the mine premises. Also the
applicant accepts the third respondent’s Zero Tolerance Safety
Policy.
In fact, Mr Maeso who appeared for the third respondent
correctly submitted that the third respondent’s zero tolerance
approach
is one of the mechanisms undertaken to prevent fatalities
that are caused,
inter alia
, by alcohol.
[33]
In order to assess the risks to the health and safety of its
employees,
the third respondent utilises a random testing system as
employees enter the premises. It is clear from the Alcohol Policy
that
once an employee tests positive for alcohol after a breathalyser
test, a follow up test must be conducted to establish the state
of
the employee’s sobriety and that should happen within 25
minutes from the time it is established that the said employee
is
suspected to be under an intoxicating substance.
[34]
In this instance, the applicant did not avail himself to a further
test
after he tested positive for alcohol. Instead, he decided to
duck and dive. He deliberately switched off his cell phones and went
to spend the entire morning in Mr Ravele’s office. As a result,
his state of his sobriety could not be established.
[35]
When confronted, the applicant conceded to ‘wetting his
whistle’
the night before and volunteered to plead guilty to an
‘alcohol transgression’ which he did. However, he
somersaulted
during the arbitration proceedings. It was his
submission that he was not guilty of any offence because testing
positive for alcohol
is not a transgression. Mr Cook also persisted
with that submission in these proceedings. That is so despite the
Alcohol Policy
clearly stating that ‘an employee who tests
positive for any intoxicating substance will be dealt with in
accordance with
the Exxaro disciplinary code (Section 7.1) and
can/may also be charged criminally…’ Clause 7.1 of the
respondent’s
disciplinary code states that it is an offence to
contravene any regulation contained in any applicable legislation,
internal policies
and procedures. In this instance, the prescripts
referred to are Regulation 4.1.7, the Alcohol Policy and the Zero
Tolerance Safety
Policy.
[36]
In
my view, when the applicant tendered a plea of guilty at the
commencement of the disciplinary enquiry it meant that there was
no
fact placed in issue and as such there was no further evidence
necessary. Nonetheless, to the extent that the arbitration is
a
de
novo
hearing, the applicant’s statement was admitted into the record
in those proceedings. Section 15
of
the Civil Proceedings and Evidence Act
[7]
provides that:
'It
shall not be necessary for any party in any civil proceedings to
prove, nor shall it be competent for any such party to
disprove
any fact admitted on the
record of such proceedings.'
[37]
It follows that the applicant was guilty of testing positive for
alcohol.
I concur with the commissioner’s finding that after
testing positive for alcohol, the applicant’s access to the
mine
premises presented a safety hazard as the third respondent could
not establish the extent and the effect of the alcohol that had
been
consumed by the applicant. To make matters worse, applicant himself
contended that after testing positive for alcohol, he
went straight
to perform inspections even though he was aware that his state of
sobriety was questionable.
[38]
In the circumstances, it is clear that the applicant blatantly
breached
the Zero Tolerance Safety Policy.
Appropriateness
of the sanction of dismissal
[39]
The record shows that the applicant is an inveterate Zero Tolerance
Safety
Policy transgressor. It was not disputed that he had been
subjected to a disciplinary enquiry on the same transgression and
under
similar circumstances. The currency of the sanction of a final
written warning that had been rendered in respect of the
transgression
that took place in September 2015 is of no consequence.
What matters is that in a space of just more than a year the
applicant
committed the same transgression. Clearly, the pattern of
transgressing the Zero Tolerance Safety Policy could not be ignored.
[40]
The applicant seemed to blame his conduct on his family problems
which
started in 2014. However, he refused the third respondent’s
help when he was found guilty of the same offence in 2015 and
bailed
out from the Social Services program prematurely. The Alcohol Policy
makes it clear that the request for assistance must
be proactive and
not be defensive. Also, in terms of clause 7.12.2 ‘[r]efusal of
rehabilitation will be recorded during inquiries
and will be used as
an aggravating factor with a second offence, which will most probably
lead to dismissal.’
[41]
Clearly,
the applicant had already squandered the clemency of a final written
warning provided in clause 7.1 of the Disciplinary
Code when he was
found guilty in November 2016. As such, there is no merit in Mr
Cook’s alternative submission that, even
if the applicant was
guilty as charged, the respondent ought to have issued him with a
final written warning. Also, the Zero Tolerance
Safety Policy
endorses a sanction of dismissal where there are no compelling
mitigating circumstances as typified in this instance.
In any event,
as correctly submitted by Mr Maeso, the third respondent’s
Disciplinary Code clearly states that the sanctions
set out in
respect of specific transgressions constitute guidelines and ‘do
not constitute inflexible rules which have to
be followed
slavishly’.
[8]
[42]
In my view,
like any other safety rule, due weight must be accorded to the Zero
Tolerance Safety Policies in the mining industry
as they clearly
underscore the importance of safety in the workplace and are aimed at
obviating the consequences of infringements;
which in most instances
are grave and may result in loss of life.
[9]
Consequently, the commissioner cannot be criticised for taking
judicial notice of the hazardous nature of mining operations
and the
importance of safety regulations.
[43]
The applicant obviously did not live up to the standard of compliance
and oversight expected of him as a senior manager.
[44]
In all the
circumstances, the commissioner’s finding that the breach of
the Zero Tolerance Safety Policy by the applicant
justified a
sanction of dismissal cannot be faulted.
[10]
[45]
I am
satisfied that the commissioner correctly construed the issues at
hand and his outcome meets the reasonableness benchmark succinctly
expounded in
Head
of the Department of Education v Mofokeng
.
[11]
Conclusion
[46]
In view of the above, it is clear that the commissioner’s award
is unassailable. Accordingly, the review application stands to be
dismissed.
Costs
[47]
It is trite
that costs in this Court do not follow the result. The requirements
of the law and fairness are a consideration.
[12]
I am disinclined to award costs against the applicant who is an
individual litigant, especially since it does not seem that he
was
mala
fide
in
launching this application.
[48]
In the premises, I make the following order:
Order
1. The review
application is dismissed.
2. There is no
order as to costs.
__________________
P
Nkutha-Nkontwana
Judge
of the Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances:
For
the Applicant: Advocate
AL Cook
Instructed
by: Alladardyce
& Partners
For
the Third Respondent: Mr
MG Maeso of Shepstone
& Wylie Attorneys
[1]
Act
66 of 1996 as amended.
[2]
See pages 132 - 133 of the Record.
[3]
See page 141, para 2.4 of the Record.
[4]
(2013) 34 ILJ 96 (LAC)
[5]
See Arbitration Award, paginated page 5, para 3(1).
[6]
Act 74 of 2008.
[7]
Act 25 of 1965.
[8]
See page 192, paras 7.2 and 7.3 of the Record
[9]
See:
Samancor
Chrome Ltd (Tubatse Ferrochrome) v Metal and Engineering Industries
Bargaining Council and Others
(2011)
32 ILJ 1057 (LAC) at para 32.
[10]
See:
XStrata
Coal South Africa v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and
Arbitration and Others
[2014] ZALCJHB 14 at para 16 to 18.
[11]
[2015] 1 BLLR 50
(LAC) at paras 30 to 33; see also
Herholdt
v Nedbank Ltd (Congress of South African Trade Unions as amicus
curia)
[2013] 11 BLLR 1074
(SCA);
Sidumo
v Platinum Mines Limited and Others
[2007] 12 BLLR 1097
(CC).
[12]
See: Section 162 of the LRA.