y ~~
| $12 |]
a> Ay
K OF SOK. >
Reportable
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
HELD AT CAPE TOWN
Case no: C184/2022
In the matter between:
KHANYISILE JIYANE Applicant
And
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION
AND ARBITRATION First Respondent
COMMISSIONER BELLA GOLDMAN N.O. Second Respondent
AMAZON DEVELOPMENT CENTRE (SOUTH
AFRICA) (PTY) LTD Third Respondent
Heard: 3 July 2025
Delivered: 7 July 2025
Summary: application to review - review granted - commissioner failed to ensure
a fair arbitration process and denied the applicant a fair opportunity to present
Page 2
her case - matter remitted to the CCMA for a fresh arbitration before another
commissioner.
JUDGMENT
DE KOCK, AJ
Introduction
[1] This matter concerns an application by the applicant (Jiyane) to review
and set aside an arbitration award given by the second respondent
(Goldman) in her capacity as a commissioner of the first respondent
(CCMA). The application has been brought in terms of section 145 of the
Labour Relations Act! (‘the LRA’).
[2] The matter arose from an alleged unfair labour practice wherein Jiyane
alleged that the third respondent (Amazon) failed or refused to reinstate
or re-employ her in terms of an agreement. The arbitration proceedings
before Goldman took place on 6 April 2022. Goldman, following the
conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, issued an award dated 25 April
2022 wherein she found that Jiyane was not subjected to any unfair
labour practice and dismissed the referral. It is this determination that
gave rise to the current review application.
The CCMA award
1 Act 66 of 1995 (as amended).
Page 3
[3] Goldman, after summarising both parties’ evidence, found that Jiyane
bears the onus to prove that she was subjected to an unfair labour
practice. Goldman finds that Jiyane’s evidence was hard to follow at
times and that she was unable to prove that she was subjected to an
unfair labour practice. Goldman finds further that, even on Jiyane’s own
version ‘Reeza told her to go and sort out her issues after which she
could come back and return to work’ it does not amount to an agreement
to reinstate or re-employ her. It must be noted that this finding is clearly
incorrect, as if proven, it would be sufficient to amount to an agreement
to reinstate or re-employ.
[4] Goldman refers to various emails sent by Jiyane to Amazon after she
resigned asking if there were any jobs available and how she could apply
for a position with Amazon. It was found that not one of the emails refer
to Jiyane having been forced to resign or to any agreement to re-employ
or reinstate her.
The test for review
[5] In Sidumo and Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd and Others,?
the Court held that ‘the reasonableness standard should now suffuse
section 145 of the LRA’, and that the threshold test for the
reasonableness of an award was: ‘...Is the decision reached by the
commissioner one that a reasonable decision-maker could not reach?...°.
In Herholdt v Nedbank Ltd and Another’ the Court applied this
reasonableness consideration as follows:
2 (2007) 28 ILJ 2405 (CC).
3 Id at para 110.
4 (2013) 34 ILJ 2795 (SCA) at para 25.