UbDIE
XT »
Py g SAN Db
( GIZy |:
NS Vy
Op Sy
COR SOUS
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
AT JOHANNESBURG
Of interest to other Judges/not reportable
Case no: JR 1558/2022
In the matter between:
GIBELA RAIL TRANSPORT CONSORTIUM RF Applicant
PTY (LTD)
and
NUMSA obo WILLIAM DUBE First Respondent
COMMISSIONER MAPALA TSATSIMPE Second Respondent
METAL AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES Third Respondent
BARGAINING COUNCIL
Heard: 25 October 2024
Delivered: . 28 July 2025
Summary: (Review —Dismissal — unauthorised use of transport and providing
false or misleading information - Applicant pleading grounds of review only in
relation to one charge and sanction — Even if review of findings on second
charge could be considered, award not one that no reasonable arbitrator could
arrive at, save for failure to impose a final written warning — award upheld but
amended to include final written warning)
2
JUDGMENT
LAGRANGE, J
Nature of the application
[1] This is an application to review an arbitration award in which.the arbitrator
found that the dismissal of the first respondent, Mr W Dube (‘Dube’), by
the applicant, Gibela Rail Transport Consortium. (‘Gibela’) was
substantively unfair and reinstated him with retrospective effect to the date
of his dismissal.
Brief synopsis
[2] Dube had been dismissed for misconduct after admitting guilt to a charge
of unauthorized use of a company vehicle [charge 1] and being found
guilty of falsifying or providing misleading information about the time of a
hijacking incident during which the company vehicle was stolen. Both
charges stemmed from the same incident. The arbitrator held that Dube
should have been issued*with a final written warning for the charge of
unauthorized use of a vehicle and found him not guilty of the charge of
providing, false or misleading information. However, for reasons mentioned
later‘in the judgment he decided not to impose a final written warning for
this misconduct when he reinstated Dube.
[3] _\Gibela,was a warehouse supervisor who had been employed by Gibela
since 2017. He had been given permission to use a company vehicle to
attend training on 25 May 2021 at Riverside Lake near Nigel, but he had
not asked for permission to take it home.
[4] When he arrived at his home in Soshanguve, he was accosted by two
armed men at his front gate who ordered him out of the vehicle and to
hand over his car keys and cell phone. They then instructed him to lie face
down on the ground, where after they drove off with the vehicle.
3
[5] He walked to Soshanguve police station from his house and reported the
incident. The vehicle had a tracking device and was recovered the
following day.
[6] The second charge, which he disputed, was that he had given false or
misleading information about the time when the incident took place. This is
dealt with in greater detail below.
The arbitrator's award
[7] The arbitrator decided that Dube’s dismissal was substantively unfair
because he was not guilty of the second charge and the first charge which
he admitted on the warranted a final written warning according to the
employer’s disciplinary code.
[8] The second charge read: “false or misleading statement, report of
evidence: In that you reported that you.were hijacked at 19H20 at your
house in Soshanguve while parked outside,waiting for the gates to open.
In your statement to the police you reported that you were approached by
two African males at about.20H43 who pointed you with guns and took the
car keys and your cellphone. Furthermore in your statement to the
company security you reported that you were hijacked at 18:00 when two
suspects with firearms approached you and instructed you to hand the
keys to the company vehicle” (sic). The thrust of the charge was that he
had been dishonest and there was a suggestion made during his cross-
examination, that he had been involved in the hijacking, but he was never
accused ofthis, and there was no evidence led to explain why such a
belief might have been held.
[9] MrxK Letsie (‘Letsie’), the site manager, testified that the vehicle tracking
report showed that the vehicle was stationary for about two minutes in the
street where Dube lived at around 20HOO. By contrast, a security incident
report compiled by a third party (Alstom) stated that the incident took place
at approximately 18HOO and that he had reported the case at the police
station at 20HOO. In his sworn statement to the police, it was stated that he
was approached by the hijackers at about 20H43.