UDdDIE
KP Ds
ay Poe : A
-( GOISE |)
CASA
Br SY
COF SOO
Not Reportable
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
HELD AT CAPE TOWN
Case Number: C401/2024
In the matter between:
GARTH SOLOMONS Applicant
And
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION
AND ARBITRATION (CCMA) First Respondent
COMMISSIONER CARLTON JOHNSON Second Respondent
COCA-COLA PENINSULA BEVERAGES (PTY)LTD Third Respondent
Heard: 4 July 2025
Delivered: 7 August 2025
JUDGMENT
DU PREEZ AJ
[1] This is an application in terms of section 145 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of
1995 (“the LRA”) in which the Applicant seeks to review and set aside an
arbitration award issued by the Second Respondent (“the Commissioner”)
under the auspices of the First Respondent, the CCMA.
[2] Although the Notice of Motion reflected two individual applicants, the Applicant
confirmed in his replying affidavit and during argument thatit is‘only,him, Garth
Solomons, who is pursuing the review.
[38] The Commissioner found that the Applicant's’ dismissal by the Third
Respondent was both substantively and_procedurally fair. The Applicant, a
cooler technician, had been dismissed for dishonesty relating to his
misrepresentation of services ‘allegedly conducted on coolers at various
customer sites.
[4] The grounds of review advanced by the Applicant are: (a) misconduct on the
part of the Commissioner; (b) gross irregularity in the conduct of the arbitration;
(c) thatthe Commissioner exceeded his powers; and (d) that the award is one
that a reasonable decision-maker could not have made.
[5] The crux of the Applicant’s case is that the Commissioner ignored material
evidence and in doing so arrived at an irrational conclusion in upholding the
dismissal.
[6] It is trite that a review court must not concern itself with the correctness of the
decision, but with whether the decision falls within the band of reasonableness
contemplated by the Constitutional Court in Sidumo and Another v Rustenburg
Platinum Mines Ltd and Others 2008 (2) SA 24 (CC).
Evaluation.
[7] The Applicant alleged that his conduct, booking incompletesservices as
completed services, was common practice within the company and not
intended to mislead. He claimed, somewhat confusingly and contradictory, that
“services” often entailed only visual inspections and did not always require
cleaning condensers or using spares.
[8] The record of the arbitration proceedings, however, reveals that this defence
was inconsistent, contradicted by several witnesses, and in fact stands in
contrast to the Applicant’s own prior admissions.
[9] The Applicant's representative, during the hearing of the review application,
attempted to argue that it was always the Applicant's intention to return to the
customers in order to “finish” the services. If the Applicant held the real belief
that a service will not necessarily always require the cleaning of the condenser,
this argument made by his representative makes no sense and in fact
contradicts the Applicant's contention that it was not always necessary to clean
the condensers. Put differently, if the Applicant did not deem it necessary to