UDIC
KY ) ‘be 4 i) >
KY Spat, \A
S Seer IS
Q +". Ly)
Lf bs
C OF soy
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
AT CAPE TOWN
Not Reportable
Case no: C 70/2024
In the matter between:
DRAKENSTEIN LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Applicant
and
BRADLEY FRANKO MATJAN First Respondent
SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT
BARGAINING COUNCIL (SALGBC) Second Respondent
COMMISSIONER ANNE ERWIN N.O. Third Respondent
Heard: 27 June 2025
Delivered: 22 July 2025
JUDGMENT
VENTER AJ
2
Introduction
[1] In this unopposed review application, the Applicant seeks to review and set aside
an arbitration award dated 28 December 2023, issued by the Third Respondent
under the auspices of the Second Respondent.
[2] The Third Respondent determined that the First Respondent was»dismissed
under section 186(1)(e) of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995,(the LRA), and
ordered the Applicant to pay the First Respondent the equivalent of six months’
salary.
[3] The Applicant's case is, essentially, that the Third Respondent misapplied the
onus in a constructive dismissal case and failed to properly assess the material
evidence.
Background
[4] The First Respondentwas employed as an Electrical Apprentice in 2009 and was
promoted.to Superintendent in 2016. He was responsible for managing electrical
maintenance, supervising staff, and participating in a rotational standby roster for
after-hours faults.
[5] The First Respondent was subjected to a disciplinary hearing and issued a final
written warning on 29 January 2021. The warning was given after he failed to
respond to a call-out during the weekend of 7 to 8 December 2019.
[6] The Head of Electrical Services, Mr Geldenhuys, subsequently removed the First
Respondent from further stand-by duties. The First Respondent was also
3
instructed not to undermine certain arrangements that were introduced to curb a
backlog in service delivery.
[7] The First Respondent filed a grievance in September 2021, accusing Mr.
Geldenhuys of victimisation. Mr. Geldenhuys retired during the same period, and
the grievance hearing was concluded by his replacement. It was decided that the
Third Respondent would be reinstated to his full duties, and he accepted the
proposal.
[8] The First Respondent nevertheless referred a dispute in lieu of outstanding
standby monies. The application was subsequently dismissed due to lateness
(condonation refused)
[9] During June 2023, Mr Geldenhuys was appointed on a.contractual basis, albeit
that he was not the manager of the First Respondent. The First Respondent fell
ill and was treated for depression during the same period.
[10] There was also evidence, regarding an injury on duty during May 2021, and the
Applicant's Health and Safety Committee found that the First Respondent was at
fault. The First'Respondent felt demoralized and doubted his own abilities.
[11] The First Respondent’s duties were reinstated from 1 March 2022 and by then,
there was assignificant backlog of complaints requiring his attention. He was
responsible for liaising with members of the public and felt he received no support
from his seniors regarding the vehicle shortage.
[12] During April 2022, the First Respondent was overlooked for possible promotion,
and he felt aggrieved. He had no faith in the grievance procedure and decided
not to refer a dispute relating to the failure to promote him.