ree DI¢ ?>
Sy wig >
‘ as y ay =
a F BS 4 >
Not reportable
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
HELD AT CAPE TOWN
Case no: C271/2022
Case no: C272/2022
Case no: C412/2022
In the matter between:
TRANSNET PORT TERMINALS Applicant
And
UNTU OBO NICOLAAS NEL & ANGUS ERASMUS First Respondent
SATAWU OBO ROSWELL RATZ Second Respondent
COMMISSIONER BELLA GOLDMAN N.O. Third Respondent
COMMISSIONER MELWYN NASH N.O. Fourth Respondent
COMMISSIONER ELVISO ADAMS N.O. Fifth Respondent
TRANSNET BARGAINING COUNCIL Sixth Respondent
Heard: 1 July 2025
Delivered: 7 July 2025
Page 2
Summary: unopposed application to consolidate — application refused — each
review application to be determined on the review test of whether the decision of
the commissioner is one that a reasonable decision maker could not reach —
inappropriate to consolidate review applications with each review application
having to be determined based on the test applicable to review applications,
which requires each commissioners decision to be analysed based on the
evidence before him/her, and based on the reasons advanced for each
commissioner's conclusions in the award — consolidation will result in the
decisions of commissioners to be argued on generalised submissions rather than
based on what evidence was presented to each commissioner based on the
transcribed record, bundle of documents, and the reasons relied on by each
commissioner for arriving at his/her conclusions.
JUDGMENT
DE KOCK, AJ
Introduction
[1] This matter concerns an application by the applicant to consolidate the
three review applications under case numbers C27 1/2022, C272/2022,
and C412/22. The respondents did not oppose the application.
Details of the application
[2] The application is made on the basis that the three matters, as dealt with
under the auspices of the sixth respondent by the third, fourth and fifth
respondents, arise from the same set of circumstances and essentially
depend on the determination of substantially the same or similar
questions of law and fact. It is also stated that there will be no prejudice
to any of the respondents if the consolidation application is granted. It is
further stated in the founding affidavit that the employees were all
dismissed for the same charge, which flowed from one incident on 28
July 2021.
Page 3
[3] The applicant states that the recurring theme in each of the arbitration
awards issued was a failure by the commissioners to consider the
following:
3.1. The appropriate sanction.
3.2 The impact on the victims.
3.3. The gravity of the misconduct.
3.4 The evidence of the victims and effect of the misconduct on their
inherent dignity and privacy.
3.5 | The common cause facts, the proven misconduct and the patently
suitable severity of the sanction.
3.6 The distorting effect of the commissioners’ errors of fact were
material and rendered the outcomes unreasonable.
Analysis
[4] The application for consolidation was unopposed. The court must
therefore accept that the respondents will not suffer any prejudice should
the three matters be consolidated. However, an application for the
consolidation of disputes cannot and should not be granted simply
because an application for such consolidation is unopposed and no
prejudice is argued on behalf of the respondents.
[5] The application for consolidation must be considered in terms of Rule 55
(1) of the new Labour Court Rules. The Rule reads as follows:
55. Consolidation of proceedings