SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: JR 1525/22
In the matter between:
NEDBANK LIMITED Applicant
and
MARIUS OLWAGE First Respondent
COMMISSIONER JOHNNY MATHEBULA N.O. Second Respondent
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION Third Respondent
Heard: 2 0 May 2025
Delivered: 12 September 2025
The judgment was handed down electronically by emailing a copy to the
parties. The 12
th of September 2025 is deemed to be the date of delivery of this
judgment.
2
JUDGMENT
NAVSA, AJ
Introduction
[1] The applicant (Nedbank) seeks an order reviewing and setting aside an
arbitration award issued on 27 June 2022 wherein the second respondent (arbitrator)
found the first respondent’s (Mr Olwage’s) dismissal to be substantively unfair and
ordered Nedbank to pay Mr Olwage backpay amounting to R 400 424.39.
[2] Mr Olwage opposed the application.
[3] Mr Olwage brought a condonation application for the late filing of his
answering affidavit in the review application, which was opposed by Nedbank. At the
hearing of this matter on 20 May 2025, Mr Aadil Patel (Mr Patel) , who appeared on
behalf of Nedbank, indicated that his client no longer persisted with its opposition to
the condonation application. It is accordingly in the interests of justice that such
condonation be granted.
Background
[4] Mr Olwage was employed by Nedbank as the Manager – Field Agents,
working in RRB Recoveries.
[5] Ms W[...] is employed by Nedbank in the Specialised Recoveries Department
and raised allegations of sexual harassment and harassment against Mr Olwage.
[6] Mr Olwage was charged with the following misconduct:
‘1. Gross Misconduct: Sexual Harassment
3
In that between the period September 2020 to April 2021, you made sexually
inappropriate, unwelcome comments towards Ms C[...] W[...]. You continued
making these comments even after you have had (sic) been requested by Ms
C[...] W[...] to refrain.
2. Gross Misconduct: Harassment
In that during April 2021, on two occasions, you deliberately created a loud
noise by shutting the metal recycling bin with force knowingly (sic) that it
would frighten Ms C[...] W[...] and would affect her wellbeing.’
[7] A disciplinary hearing was held on 13 September 2021, 26 November 2021
and 27 November 2021. Mr Olwage was found guilty of the two charges and was
summarily dismissed.
[8] The South African Society of Bank Officials (SASBO) referred an unfair
dismissal dispute, on behalf of Mr Olwage, to the third respondent (CCMA) and the
matter was arbitrated on 07 June 2022.
[9] The arbitrator had to determine whether or not misconduct was committed on
which the employer’s decision to dismiss was based, namely sexual harassment and
harassment. The arbitrator, after such determination, was then required to assess
the fairness of the dismissal.
The arbitrator’s findings
[10] In the arbitration award the arbitrator understood the issue as being whether
Mr Olwage’s dismissal was substantively fair, and, if not the appropriate relief to be
awarded.
[11] The arbitrator, in his analysis of the evidence and argument, recorded that
sexual harassment is unwanted sexual attention and can take many forms including,
but not limited to, unwanted comments of a sexual nature and that it could constitute
a barrier in the workplace. The arbitrator was also seemingly mindful that sexual
harassment involves power dynamics within the workplace.
4
[12] The arbitrator categorised the dispute before him as one concerning
unwanted comments of a sexual nature.
[13] The arbitrator placed much emphasis on what he recorded as the undisputed
evidence from Mr Olwage’s witnesses , namely that Mr Olwage complimented
everybody else of both sexes, that Ms W[...] appreciated the comments in certain
instances and not in others, and that Mr Olwage always banged the dustbin.
[14] The arbitrator held it against Ms W[...] that her own witness, Mr Andre Spies
(Mr Spies), gave evidence that upon her informing him of the sexual harassment ,
she proceeded to tell him that she would handle Mr. Olwage herself.
[15] On the unwanted comments of a sexual nature, the arbitrator focused on the
evidence given by Ms Abigail Mokwele (Ms Mokwele) , one of Mr Olwage’s
witnesses. Ms Mokwele’s version of the incident was that Ms W[...] had gone hiking
and had severe sunburn, and that Mr Olwage had said that Ms W[...] could sit on his
lap when she was feeling tired.
[16] The arbitrator did not find Ms W[...] to be a reliable witness . The arbitrator
recorded that Ms W[...] appeared to be abusing the allegations of sexual harassment
to get even, and that there was no allegation mentioned by her that had any sexual
overtures. Ms W[...] appeared to be the only one who did not like the compliments
and had a general dislike of men in general referring to them as pigs or dogs.
[17] The arbitrator further recorded that Ms W[...] could not decide what
constituted sexual harassment and what did not.
[18] The arbitrator, on the harassment charge, found that there was no evidence
that Mr Olwage made the noise with the bin to target and scare Ms W[...].
[19] Ms W[...] did not create a favourable impression on the arbitrator, and he
found that she was not a credible witness.
5
[20] This credibility finding was based on, amongst others, that she denied
everything that supposedly happened between her and Mr Olwage, that the trigger
for the claims was not that Mr Olwage was pursuing her for sex , that she made
claims of sexual harassment after the bin incident, and that when she referred to the
lap incident, she deliberately placed it out of context as if it was an isolated incident
stated by Mr Olwage in pursuit of sex.
[21] The context, according to the arbitrator, was Ms W[...]’s hiking trip and the
sunburn she had upon her return. This was not an acrimonious setting and after Mr
Olwage asked her to sit on his lap, she allegedly walked away.
[22] The arbitrator’s view of Ms W[...] and his impression of her as a witness was
also informed by her inability to recall certain discussions, interactions and
comments with Mr Olwage concerning his wife’s beauty, illicit cigarettes , his
complimenting of other people and management style.
[23] The arbitrator held it against Ms W[...] that she did not report the alleged
sexual harassment immediately on the basis that she had to gather courage, as she
was able to yell at Mr Olwage when he made the noise with the bin. He found that
as she did not report to Mr Olwage, she could not argue that there was a fear of
reprisals or possible dismissal.
[24] The arbitrator also attributed to Ms W[...] a history of accusing her manager as
well, and that he was left with the impression that Ms W[...] had a hold over Mr
Spies.
[25] The arbitrator ultimately found Ms W[...] to be untruthful and concluded that no
sexual harassment took place.
Nedbank’s review grounds
6
[26] Nedbank seeks a review of the arbitration award dated 27 June 2022, in
terms of section 145 of the Labour Relations Act 1 (the LRA) on the basis of the
Sidumo and another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd and others2 test.
[27] Nedbank asserts that the arbitrator committed gross irregularities and errors
of law which led to him making a decision that a reasonable decision maker could
not have come to.
[28] Nedbank’s point of departure is that it was common cause that Mr Olwage
had made comments about Ms W[...]’s appearance and that these comments were
unwanted or unw elcome. Ms W[...] had communicated this much to Mr Olwage ,
and he was in no doubt about her stance in relation to them.
[29] Nedbank contends that the arbitrator’s decision was not based on whether the
criteria for sexual harassment had been met, but rather on his perception that these
comments were innocuous and thus could not constitute sexual harassment.
[30] Nedbank further contends that the arbitrator failed to adopt a reasonable
approach to evaluating whether sexual harassment had taken place, failed to
consider the Code of Good Practice on Sexual Harassment
3, and imposed his own
self-created standard to assess Mr Olwage’s conduct.
[31] Nedbank additionally contends that the arbitrator, incorrectly and
unreasonably asserted that the test to be applied is whether the conduct was the
trigger for reporting sexual harassment and that the conduct would only constitute
sexual harassment if sex was being pursued.
[32] Nedbank also takes issue with the significant weight placed by the arbitrator
on whether Ms W[...] had an improper motive for accusing Mr Olwage of sexual
harassment, and the lack of a victim centred approach taken by the arbitrator.
1 No. 66 of 1995, as amended.
2 (2008) 28 ILJ 2405 (CC); (2007) 28 ILJ 2405 (CC).
3 GNR1890 in GG 46056 of 18 March 2022.
7
[33] Nedbank ultimately asserts that the arbitrator failed to properly apply the
established law and tests for sexual harassment.
[34] Nedbank specifically takes issue with the arbitrator’s findings on Ms W[...]’s
credibility and states that such findings are immaterial as to whether sexual
harassment had taken place.
[35] Nedbank lastly contends that the arbitrator’s failure to assess the evidence
properly and his heavy reliance on credibility findings had the distorting effect of
rendering the overall findings based on the evidence that was before him
unreasonable. The arbitrator ought, on the evidence, to have found that Mr Olwage
was guilty of sexual harassment.
Relevant legal principles
[36] I have to deal with the grounds of review within the context of the test this
Court must apply in deciding whether the arbitrator’s decision is reviewable.
[37] Sidumo
4 is the prevailing authority on when a decision of an arbitrator is
reviewable in terms of section 145 of the LRA. The question to be asked being: Is
the decision reached by the Commissioner one that a reasonable decision maker
could not reach?
[38] The Supreme Court of Appeal, Labour Appeal Court, and Labour Court, in its
subsequent jurisprudence has clarified the review test.
5
4 (2008) 28 ILJ 2405 (CC) at page 59, paragraph 110.
5 Herholdt v Nedbank Ltd (Congress of SA Trade Unions as Amicus Curiae) (2013) 34 ILJ 2795 (SCA)
page 2803 where the SCA clarified that a result will only be unreasonable if it is one that a reasonable
arbitrator could not reach on all the material that was placed before the arbitrator; See also Gold
Fields Mining SA (Pty) Ltd v CCMA [2014] 1 BLLR 20 (LAC) at page 26 paragraph [20] which sets out
the proper questions to be asked in terms of a review under section 145(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of the LRA;
See also Head of Department of Education v Mofokeng & Others (2015) 36 ILJ 2802 (LAC) at
See also Head of Department of Education v Mofokeng & Others (2015) 36 ILJ 2802 (LAC) at
paragraphs [30] to [33]; See also Shoprite Checkers v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and
Arbitration & Others [2015] 10 BLLR 1052 (LC) at paragraphs [9] and [10] which dealt with
determining when a failure by a Commissioner to consider facts will be reviewable; See also
Democratic Nursing Organisation of SA on behalf of Du Toit & another v Western Cape Department
of Health & Others (2016) 37 ILJ 1819 (LAC) at paragraph [15]; See also Makuleni v Standard Bank
of South Africa (2023) 44 ILJ 1005 (LAC) at paragraphs 2 and 3.
8
[39] The failure by an arbitrator to apply his or her mind to issues which are
material to the determination of a case will usually be an irregularity, but before such
an irregularity will result in the setting aside of the award, it must in addition reveal
either a misconception of the true enquiry or result in an unreasonable outcome.
6
[40] The Labour Appeal Court 7 has emphasised that an arbitration award will be
considered to be reasonable when there is a material connection between the
evidence and the result. Conversely, an arbitration award will be deemed to be
unreasonable if it is entirely disconnected from the evidence, unsupported by any
evidence and involves speculation by the arbitrator.
Evaluation: Sexual harassment and harassment
[41] The Labour Appeal Court in Campbell Scientific Africa (Pty) Ltd v Simmers &
others
8, reminded us that central to the transformative mission of our Constitution is
the hope that it will have us re -imagine power relations within society in order to
achieve substantive equality especially for those who were disadvantaged by past
discrimination.
[42] The term harassment is generally understood to be unwanted conduct which
impairs dignity, which creates a hostile or intimidating work environment for one or
more employees, and is related to one or more grounds in respect of which
discrimination is prohibited in terms of section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act 55
of 1998 (‘the EEA’).
9
[43] Sexual harassment may be described as persistent, unsolicited, and
unwanted sexual advances or suggestions by one person to another.
10
6 Head of Department of Education v Mofokeng & Others (2015) 36 ILJ 2802 (LAC) at paragraphs [30]
to [33].
7 Quest Flexible Staffing Solutions (Pty) Ltd (A Division of Adcorp Fulfilment Services (Pty) Ltd) v
Lebogate (2015) 36 ILJ 968 (LAC); See also Bestel v Astral Operations Ltd & others [2011] 2 BLLR
129 (LAC)
8 (2016) 37 ILJ 116 (LAC).
129 (LAC)
8 (2016) 37 ILJ 116 (LAC).
9 See the Code of Good Practice on the Prevention and Elimination of Harassment in the Workplace.
10 See Grogan Workplace Law (13th edition) Chapter 12, 3.9 Sexual harassment.
9
[44] The Code of Good Practice on the Prevention and Elimination of Harassment
in the Workplace ( ‘the Code ’) gives specific guidance on how to handle sexual
harassment cases. 11
[45] Item 5 of the Code provides as follows:
‘5. Sexual harassment
5.1 Sexual harassment of an employee is a form of unfair discrimination
and is prohibited on the grounds of sex, gender, or sexual orientation. Same
sex harassment can amount to discrimination on the basis of sex, gender,
sexual orientation and gender-based harassment.
5.2 Factors to establish sexual harassment
Unwanted conduct
5.2.1 There are different ways in which an employee may indicate that
sexual conduct is unwanted, including non- verbal conduct such as walking
away or not responding to the perpetrator.
5.2.2 Previous consensual participation in sexual conduct does not
necessarily mean that the conduct continues to be acceptable to the
employee.
5.2.3 Where a complainant has difficulty indicating to the perpetrator that the
conduct is unwanted such complainant may seek the assistance and
intervention of another person such as a co -worker, superior, counsellor,
human resource official, family member or friend.
5.2.4 The fact that the complainant does not indicate that the conduct is
unwanted does not entail that there has not been sexual harassment, if the
conduct is such that the harasser/perpetrator ought to have known it could be
regarded as unwanted.
Nature and extent of conduct
5.2.5 The unwanted conduct must be of a sexual nature and includes
physical, verbal or non- verbal conduct , whether expressed directly or
indirectly. Conduct amounting to sexual harassment may include - ….
Impact of the conduct
5.2.8 The conduct should constitute an impairment of the employee’s dignity ,
11 GNR1890 in GG 46056 of 18 March 2022.
10
taking into account.
5.2.8.1 the circumstances of the employee; and
5.2.8.2 the respective positions of the employee and the perpetrator in
the workplace.
5.3 Test for sexual harassment
5.3.1 Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, whether
direct or indirect, that the perpetrator knows or ought to know is not welcome.
Sexual harassment may be offensive to the complainant, make the
complainant feel uncomfortable or cause harm or inspire the reasonable belief
that the complainant may be harmed. Sexual harassment may interfere with
the work of the complainant although it need not necessarily do so. Sexual
harassment violates the rights of an employee and constitutes a barrier to
equality in the workplace.
5.3.2 The test for establishing whether there has been sexual harassment
takes into account the following factors:
5.3.2.1 whether the harassment is on the prohibited grounds of sex
and/or gender and/or sexual orientation;
5.3.2.2 whether the sexual conduct was unwanted or unacceptable;
5.3.2.3 the nature and extent of the sexual conduct; and
5.3.2.4 the impact of the sexual conduct on the employee.’
[46] The Labour Appeal Court in Motsam ai v Everite Building Products
12
highlighted that sexual harassment is the most heinous conduct that plagues the
workplace, and that as it goes to the root of one’s being it must therefore be viewed
from the victim’s point of view, how the victim perceived it and whether or not that
perception is reasonable.
[47] The Labour Appeal Court has also stressed that sexual harassment, at its
core, is concerned with the exercise of power and in the main reflects the power
relations that exist both in society generally and specifically within a particular
workforce.
13
12 [2011] 2 BLLR 144 (LAC).
13 See Campbell Scientific Africa (Pty) Ltd v Simmers & others (2016) 37 ILJ 116 (LAC) at
paragraph 20.
11
[48] The test as to whether the conduct is unwelcome both for harassment and
sexual harassment is objective. If the conduct is not unwelcome it cannot be
harassment or sexual harassment.
14
[49] Arbitrators, in dealing with cases of sexual harassment, are required to avoid
latent gender bias and to treat such cases with special sensitivity.
15
[50] Once the arbitrator acknowledged that Mr Olwage’s alleged misconduct
concerned sexual harassment, it became imperative for the arbitrator to have
specifically considered and applied the Code.
[51] A reading of the arbitration award clearly demonstrates that the arbitrator did
not do so. This, on its own, is a gross irregularity committed by the arbitrator as he
failed to consider and apply principles that he was meant to. However, the existence
of the gross irregularity, under the review test , does not necessarily mean that the
award is reviewable. It must be considered if the outcome arrived at by the arbitrator
was nonetheless reasonable.
[52] This entails a consideration of the actual provisions of the Code and in
particular Item 5, which deals with sexual harassment, factors to establish sexual
harassment, the nature and extent of the conduct, the impact of the conduct and the
test for sexual harassment.
[53] The transcript reveals that Mr Olwage made comments to Ms W[...] in
December 2020 about her hair, her clothing, her appearance and that he would say
things to her like, ‘you are so beautiful’, ‘you are so stunning’ , ‘black looks good on
you’.
[54] These comments were upsetting and made her feel uncomfortable. She had
hoped that this behaviour by Mr Olwage would stop, but upon his return from leave
in January 2021 it continued unabated.
14 See Amathole District Municipality v CCMA & Others (2023) 44 ILJ 109 (LC).
15 Old Mutual Life Assurance SA v Makanda (2020) 41 ILJ 444 (LC).
12
[55] On 12 January 2021, Ms W[...] took temperatures of employees in the office
as part of Covid screening. When she approached Mr Olwage for this purpose, he
said to her, ‘Canny why do you not sit in my lap’. She was upset and offended by
this but did not want to cause conflict in the office, so she walked away. Later that
evening she resolved upon confronting him in front of witnesses so that he would
desist from such behaviour.
[56] On 14 January 2021 she put her resolution into action and confronted him.
She told him that his behaviour was inappropriate, unwanted and made her feel
uncomfortable. She asked him to stop immediately.
[57] The transcript shows that Mr Olwage ’s recollection of the incident was vastly
different. Mr Olwage throughout the transcript was non- committal on dates when
alleged incidents took place. He could not recall a lap sitting incident in January
2021 but places the incident as having occurred in April/May 2021.
[58] Mr Olwage’s recollection, as evidenced from the transcript, was that Ms W[...]
had just returned to work from a trip to the Drakensberg and had taken his
temperature that morning as part of Covid testing.
[59] Ms W[...] was badly sunburned, and after telling her this she told him that he
should see her legs . As Ms W[...] was trying to lift up the part of her pants to show
him her badly sunburned leg, she stumbled with the thermometer in her hand. It was
at this point that he told her if she stumbled, he would not be able to catch her , and
she was going to end up falling on his lap. He did not ask her to come and sit on his
lap.
[60] From the transcript, Ms Mokwele recalled the incident but could not provide a
definitive date as to when it occurred. Her recollection was that Ms W[...] was badly
sunburned from hiking and had expressed the feeling of being tired. She was unable
to recall much but remembered Mr Olwage saying to Ms W[...] to come and sit on his
13
lap if she was not feeling okay , or if she was not feeling well to come and sit on his
lap. That is what Ms Mokwele thought Mr Olwage had said to Ms W[...].
[61] Even after this incident, and despite knowing that these attentions were
unwelcome Mr Olwage would make comments to Ms W[...] such as, ‘I don’t want to
tell you, you look stunning, just now I am going to get in trouble with you.’
[62] The arbitrator on the unwanted comments of a sexual nature focused on the
evidence given by Ms Mokwele and did not engage and analyse Ms W[...] and Mr
Olwage’s versions. Even on Ms Mokwele’s version, upon which the arbitrator placed
heavy reliance, Mr Olwage had said to Ms W[...] to come and sit on his lap.
[63] When Ms W[...] and Mr Olwage’s versions are compared and contrasted the
probabilities favour Ms W[...]’s version that Mr Olwage said to her, ‘ Canny why do
you not sit in my lap’.
[64] This certainly qualifies as being unwanted conduct contemplated by the Code.
The arbitrator attempted to contextualise Mr Olwage asking Ms W[...] to sit on his lap
and held it against Ms W[...] that she then allegedly walked away.
[65] Had the arbitrator properly understood and applied the Code relating to
unwelcome conduct he would have appreciated that the walking away (non-verbal
conduct) by Ms W[...] was a clear indicator that the conduct by Mr Olwage was
unwanted.
[66] The arbitrator did not find Ms W[...] to be a reliable witness on the basis that
Ms W[...] was trying to get even. This finding is certainly not supported by a reading
of the transcript.
[67] Moreover, when Mr Olwage asked Mr W[...] to sit in his lap it was unwanted
conducted that had clear sexual overtures . These were not compliments as the
arbitrator would seem to suggest but constituted unwanted conduct in terms of the
Code. The finding by the arbitrator that Ms W[...] disliked men in general referring to
them as pigs or dogs is also not supported by the record.
14
[68] The record reflects alleged comments made by Ms W[...] during a
conversation around gender-based violence, which Ms W[...] could not recall. It
certainly did not support a finding that Ms W[...] was pre-disposed against men or
that she would fabricate an allegation of sexual harassment.
[69] The arbitrator seemingly ignored the point of view of Ms W[...] as the victim
concerning the alleged sexual harassment , how Ms W[...] perceived it, and whether
or not that perception was reasonable.
[70] The credibility findings made by the arbitrator against Ms W[...] are also not
supported by the transcript . Ms W[...]’s versions remained consistent and the
manner in which she testified, as apparent from the transcript, appears to be open
and forthright. I could find nothing material in the transcript that detracted from the
credibility of her evidence.
[71] The record of the evidence speaks for itself, and the credibility findings made
by the arbitrator against Ms W[...] is not justified by the record.
[72] A proper consideration of the evidence makes it clear that the evidence of
Ms W[...] is to be preferred over that of Mr Olwage as being more credible, and that
the probabilities also favour it.
[73] The arbitrator also took issue with Ms W[...] having not reported the incident
immediately because she had to gather courage. The arbitrator failed to appreciate
that in some instances the recipient may be unable to immediately express their
revulsion, that it is not uncommon for recipients to process what has occurred and to
act on the conduct in question at a later stage.
16
[74] There is also no support in the transcript for the arbitrator’s finding that Ms
W[...] had a history of accusing her manager, Mr Spies, or that there was any
impression created that Ms W[...] had a hold over him.
16 U v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration & Others (2021) 42 ILJ 1778 (LC).
15
[75] From the transcript Mr Spies himself ultimately denied that Ms W[...] had any
vendetta against him and confirmed that she merely assisted someone else who had
brought a case against him.
[76] It is in my view clear that the conduct of Mr Olwage towards Ms W[...]
constitutes sexual harassment . The arbitrator’s finding that no sexual harassment
took place is irregular and equally not a reasonable outcome.
[77] It is strictly speaking not necessary to consider the reasoning of the arbitrator
when it comes to the charge of harassment considering that the misconduct of
sexual harassment would justify Mr Olwage’s dismissal.
[78] However, for the sake of completeness it is clear from a reading of the
arbitration award that the arbitrator conflated the sexual harassment charge and the
harassment charge.
[79] The evidence from the transcript reveals that Mr Olwage on two occasions in
April 2021 deliberately created a loud noise by shutting a metal recycling bin with
force, and that he was aware in doing so, that this would frighten Ms W[...] and affect
her wellbeing.
[80] Ms W[...]’s evidence from the transcript is that Mr Olwage did this to get a
reaction from her , and he was aware that this conduct would frighten her . Mr
Olwage also accepted that he knew that this would frighten Ms W[...].
[81] This conduct by Mr Olwage, in the context of what preceded it , clearly
constitutes harassment.
[82] It is my view that the arbitrator committed gross irregularities , errors of law
and incorrectly evaluated the evidence, which resulted in him coming to an
unreasonable finding.
16
[83] Considering the evidence before the arbitrator holistically, the arbitrator’s
findings are disconnected from the evidence, involves speculation by the arbitrator,
and the decision reached by the arbitrator is one that no reasonable decision maker
could have reached. There is a clear basis for this court to interfere with the award
on review.
[84] Nedbank could not fairly have been expected to continue the employment
relationship with Mr Olwage.
[85] The arbitration award must be reviewed and set aside. In exercising my
discretion and given that the complete record of the arbitration proceedings is before
me, I have decided to substitute the arbitration award rather than remit the matter for
a fresh hearing.
Costs
[86] With reference to the issue of costs, this Court has a broad discretion to make
costs orders in accordance with the requirements of law and fairness.
[87] In my view, the interests of justice will best be served by making no order as
to costs.
[88] In the result, the following order is made:
Order
1. The arbitration award issued by the second respondent under case
number GAJB 21564 – 21 dated 27 June 2022 is reviewed and set aside, and
is substituted with an award in the following terms:
‘The first respondent’s dismissal is substantively fair’
2. There is no order as to costs.
17
ZM Navsa
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances:
For the Applicant: Mr. Aadil Patel of Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr Incorporated
For the First Respondent: Advocate B Brammer
Instructed by: JVK Attorneys