• Law Reports
  • Mpact Operations (Pty) Ltd v Metal and Engineering …

Mpact Operations (Pty) Ltd v Metal and Engineering Bargaining Council and Others (C181/2024) [2026] ZALCCT 2 (15 January 2026)

80 Reportability
Labour Law
View PDF SAFLII Source
Share WhatsApp LinkedIn X Email

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Dismissal — Theft — Materially defective investigation undermined employer's case; dismissal deemed substantively unfair due to failure to secure key evidence and flawed procedures.

Comprehensive Summary

Summary of Judgment


1. Introduction


This matter concerned an opposed review application in the Labour Court in which the applicant employer, Mpact Operations (Pty) Ltd, sought to have an arbitration award reviewed and set aside. The award had been issued under the auspices of the Metal and Engineering Bargaining Council (the first respondent) by the appointed arbitrator, A Singh-Bhoopchand (the second respondent). The employee party was represented by NUMSA obo Brian Theodore April (the third respondent).


The procedural history was that Mr April, employed by Mpact Operations (Pty) Ltd as a Winder Operator since 2009, was dismissed on 7 November 2022 following an internal disciplinary hearing. He then challenged the fairness of his dismissal at arbitration in the bargaining council. The arbitrator found the dismissal substantively unfair and ordered reinstatement with back pay. The employer then approached the Labour Court to review and set aside that award, alternatively seeking a remittal to be arbitrated afresh by a different arbitrator.


The general subject-matter of the dispute was whether the employer had proved, on the evidence, that the employee committed theft/unauthorised possession of company property and dishonesty arising from an incident involving a roll of toilet paper allegedly removed from the employer’s premises without authorisation. A further aspect of the dispute concerned the evidentiary integrity of the employer’s investigation and whether, on review, the arbitrator’s conclusion that the employer had not discharged the onus was one that a reasonable arbitrator could reach.


2. Material Facts


It was undisputed that on 21 October 2022, at the end of his shift, Mr April was stopped and searched by security personnel at the employer’s premises and that a roll of toilet paper was found in his bag during that search. It was also common cause that the employee was allowed to leave the premises with the roll after the interaction with security, and that this was captured on video footage (although the probative value of the footage was contested).


The employer’s case at arbitration (and in the review) was that it had received a tip-off that the employee was stealing company toilet paper, and that security personnel were instructed to search him. The employer contended that the roll found in his possession was the employer’s property and that a workplace rule required employees to declare items brought from home if they were the same as or similar to items used on the premises.


The employee’s version was that the roll did not belong to the employer and that he had brought it from home. He denied theft and dishonesty. While the employer sought to rely on evidence suggesting that its toilet paper was unique and not obtainable at retail stores, the judgment records that the employer’s evidentiary difficulties centred on how the investigation was conducted and how physical evidence was (not) preserved for purposes of proof.


The court treated as materially significant the following chronological features of the employer’s investigation and evidentiary record. Photographs were taken by an employer witness (Rall), but the evidentiary record did not include a contemporaneous, reliable side-by-side comparison of the roll found in the employee’s possession and a sample roll used by the employer at the time of the incident. A later photograph comparing two rolls was taken only on the day of the disciplinary hearing, which the court regarded as incapable of proving what occurred on 21 October 2022. The employer’s explanation that the security office was busy and that managers did not pay attention when the employee put the roll back into his bag was treated as implausible in the circumstances, given that security managers had been called to deal with the incident.


A further fact treated as central by both the arbitrator and the Labour Court was the employer’s failure to confiscate the disputed roll at the time of the incident, resulting in the loss of what the court described as the “real and best evidence” needed to prove whether the roll was company property and whether the employee had intended to remove company property without authorisation.


3. Legal Issues


The central legal question was whether, on the evidence placed before the arbitrator, the employer had proved on a balance of probabilities that the employee was guilty of the charged misconduct, namely theft or unauthorised possession of company property and dishonesty (attempting to remove company property without authorisation).


A related legal question concerned the proper application of Schedule 8, item 7 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (as amended), particularly item 7(a), which requires the decision-maker to consider whether the employee contravened a workplace rule or standard regulating conduct in or relevant to the workplace. The court treated the question of contravention (including the elements of theft and the evidentiary proof required) as determinative.


In review terms, the dispute concerned the application of law to fact and the evaluation of whether the arbitrator’s conclusion on proof and probabilities was reviewable for unreasonableness. The employer alleged material failures of reasoning and evaluation, including failures regarding the existence and knowledge of the rule, the uniqueness of the roll, the evidentiary significance of photographs and video footage, and the assessment of trust and sanction. The Labour Court approached the review enquiry by asking whether the arbitrator reached a conclusion that a reasonable arbitrator could reach on the material before her.


4. Court’s Reasoning


The Labour Court’s reasoning proceeded from the statutory framework in Schedule 8, item 7 of the Labour Relations Act. It recorded that, in determining whether a dismissal for misconduct is unfair, a decision-maker must consider whether the employee contravened a relevant rule or standard, and if so, whether the rule was valid and reasonable, whether the employee was (or should have been) aware of it, whether it was consistently applied, and whether dismissal was an appropriate sanction.


On the facts of this case, the court recorded that there was no dispute that certain elements under item 7(b) were common cause, and it disposed of the consistency point (item 7(b)(iii)) by reference to the employee’s reliance on another employee (“Ronel”) and the employer’s reply that she had been dismissed (though reinstated on appeal). The court therefore treated consistency as not ultimately in issue for purposes of deciding the review.


The court focused the analysis on item 7(a), namely whether the employee in fact contravened a rule or standard relevant to the workplace. It then referred to the principle (with reference to authority cited in the judgment) that theft requires a mental element, namely knowledge that the goods do not belong to the employee and an intention permanently to deprive the owner, and that a genuine belief of authorisation negates guilt.


Applying these principles, the court held that the employer’s case was fundamentally undermined by the manner in which the incident was investigated and evidenced. Both the arbitrator and the court treated the failure to secure key physical evidence as central. The court reasoned that the absence of contemporaneous comparative photographs, together with the failure to confiscate the roll at the time it was found, materially compromised the employer’s ability to prove that the roll was company property and that the employee attempted to remove it dishonestly.


The court accepted, as a rational inference from the uncontested fact that the employee was allowed to leave with the roll (in the presence of multiple security personnel and managers), that the employer’s own conduct undercut the allegation that the roll was treated as stolen company property at the time. The employer’s explanations for not preserving the evidence were treated as implausible and inadequate, especially given that the incident was the specific reason the managers were called to the security office.


On review, the court’s conclusion was that, given the compromised investigation and evidentiary gaps, the arbitrator’s finding that the employer failed to discharge the onus was one that a reasonable arbitrator could reach. The Labour Court therefore found no basis to interfere with the award on the merits.


As to remedy, the employer challenged the back-pay calculation on the basis that the award reflected a miscalculation. The Labour Court held that this was a typographical error and explained that the arbitrator had limited back pay to 10 months (not 12) because delays were beyond the parties’ control, which yielded a back-pay amount of R120 000 based on a monthly wage of R12 000. The court therefore did not set aside the award but confirmed it, subject to updating dates reflected in the order.


The court also addressed the arbitrator’s discussion of sanction. It reasoned that once the arbitrator found the employer had not proved guilt, the enquiry (as framed by the arbitrator) should have ended, and sanction did not arise as a necessary separate enquiry. However, the court regarded the arbitrator’s discussion of sanction as a cautious addition and not a reviewable defect in the circumstances.


5. Outcome and Relief


The Labour Court dismissed the review application and declined to set aside or remit the arbitration award. It confirmed that the employee’s dismissal was substantively unfair and ordered the employer to reinstate the employee with back pay, subject to a limitation.


The relief granted was reinstatement with full back pay from the date of dismissal, but with back pay limited to 10 months’ compensation in the sum of R120 000. The amount was ordered to be paid by 28 February 2026, and the employee was required to report for duty on 2 February 2026.


The court made no order as to costs.


Cases Cited


Mpact Operations (Pty) Ltd v Metal and Engineering Bargaining Council and Others (C181/2024) [2026] ZALCCT 2 (15 January 2026).


Matsekoleng v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd [2013] 2 BLLR 130 (LAC).


Legislation Cited


Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (as amended), Schedule 8, item 7.


Rules of Court Cited


No rules of court were cited in the judgment.


Held


The Labour Court held that the employer failed to demonstrate reviewable error in the arbitrator’s award because the arbitrator’s conclusion that the employer did not discharge the onus of proving theft/unauthorised possession and dishonesty was reasonable on the evidence. The court held that the employer’s investigation was materially defective, particularly due to the failure to secure and preserve the key physical evidence and the fact that security allowed the employee to leave with the disputed roll.


The court further held that the back-pay figure of R120 000 reflected a limitation of back pay to 10 months at R12 000 per month, and that any apparent reference to 12 months was a typographical error rather than a misdirection warranting interference.


LEGAL PRINCIPLES


In misconduct dismissals, the decision-maker must apply Schedule 8, item 7 of the Labour Relations Act by first determining whether the employee in fact contravened a workplace rule or standard relevant to the workplace, and only thereafter considering the validity of the rule, awareness, consistency of application, and appropriateness of dismissal as a sanction.


For allegations of theft, proof requires establishing the requisite mental element, including knowledge that the property does not belong to the employee and an intention permanently to deprive the owner; a genuine belief of authorisation is inconsistent with guilt.


In review proceedings challenging an arbitration award on factual and evidentiary evaluation, the Labour Court assesses whether the arbitrator reached a conclusion that a reasonable arbitrator could reach on the evidentiary material, and will not interfere where the employer’s case fails on the onus of proof due to compromised investigation and insufficient preservation of key evidence.

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZALCCT 2
|

|

Mpact Operations (Pty) Ltd v Metal and Engineering Bargaining Council and Others (C181/2024) [2026] ZALCCT 2 (15 January 2026)

FLYNOTES:
LABOUR – Dismissal –
Theft
–
Proof
– Roll of toilet paper – Materially defective
investigation – Failure to secure key physical evidence

fundamentally compromised employer’s case – Security
personnel allowed employee to leave premises with disputed
roll –
Undermined allegation of attempted theft – Flawed
investigation and inadequate evidentiary record –
No
contravention of workplace rules proven – Dismissal is
substantively unfair.
THE LABOUR COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN
Case
No:
C181/2024
(1)
Reportable
(2)
Of interest to other Judges: Yes/No
(3)
Revised
In
the matter between:
MPACT OPERATIONS (PTY)
LTD

Applicant
and
METAL AND ENGINEERING
BARGAINING
COUNCIL
First Respondent
A
SINGH-BHOOPCHAND
N.0.
Second Respondent
NUMSA obo BRIAN
THEODORE APRIL

Third Respondent
Heard
:
16 October 2025
Delivered
:
15 January 2026
Summary:
Review application - proof of - theft - attempt to remove - initial
investigation compromised
JUDGMENT
MKHATSHWA, AJ
Introduction
[1]
This is an opposed review application for the following order:
‘
reviewing
and setting aside the ruling under case number
MEWC
13277
,
dated 18 March 2024 (the Award) made by the Second Respondent under
the auspice of the First Respondent. In the alternative, the
matter
be remitted back to the First Respondent, to be dealt with by an
arbitrator other than the Second Respondent.’
Background
Facts
[2]
The Third Respondent, Mr Theodore April, was
employed as a Winder Operator. He commenced employment with the
Applicant in 2009.
He was dismissed on 7 November 2022 after he was
found guilty at an internal disciplinary hearing. He was earning R12
000 per month
at the time of his dismissal. The charges that he faced
were the following:
‘
Theft
or unauthorized possession of Company Property: in that on the 21
st
of
October 2022, security found a roll of toilet paper in your
possession after your shift had ended. The toilet paper was the same

brand as what the company are using.
Dishonesty: In that you
attempted to remove company property without authorization and
permission.’
[3]
It was not disputed at the arbitration that a roll
of toilet paper (the roll) was found in the Third Respondent’s
possession
when security conducted a search. The Third Respondent
denied that the roll belonged to the Applicant and claimed that he
carried
it with him from his home. He also argued that the Applicant
had not been consistent in the application of the sanction of
dismissal.
[4]
The Applicant, on its part, argued at the
arbitration that it received a tip off that the Third Respondent was
stealing company
toilet paper. Acting on the tip off, the Applicant’s
security staff at the gate were instructed to carry out a search and

found a roll that belonged to the Applicant in the Third Respondent’s
bag. The Applicant’s rule is that employees must
declare items
that they bring from home if they are the same/similar to items that
are on the Applicant’s premises.
[5]
The Second Respondent found that the dismissal of
the Third Respondent was unfair, and she ordered his reinstatement
with 12 months
back pay amounting to R120 000.
Grounds of review
The Applicant raises the
following grounds of review against the Award of the Second
Respondent under three main headings:
The rule in the
workplace
[6]
The Second Respondent failed to apply her mind to
the evidence and thereby grossly misconducted herself by not
establishing whether
the Applicant proved that the Third Respondent
reasonably knew, or ought to have known of the rule in the workplace.
[7]
A bare denial of the rule by the Third Respondent
was not sufficient, and in any event, he later conceded at the
arbitration that
“
he now accepts
the rule and acknowledges that he is guilty for not declaring”
the item. That the Second Respondent ought to have
accepted that the Third Respondent knew of the rule, and that the
rule was reasonable
and further that it was applied consistently.
Breach of the rule
[8]
The testimony revealed that the Applicant’s
roll is unique and cannot be found in a retail store, as it is
purchased from
a supplier. Since the Third Respondent did not deny
this, the Second Respondent should have accepted it as a fact.
[9]
There was no evidence from the Third Respondent on
where he purchased “
his roll”
.
Except that he said he brought it from home.
[10]
The Second Respondent grossly erred by comparing
the roll brought by the Third Respondent to the disciplinary hearing.
That instead
she should have scrutinised the roll confiscated on the
date of the incident, with that which the Applicant generally
purchases.
Breach of trust
[11]
The Second Respondent failed to properly take into
account the serious nature of the Third Respondent’s conduct
and misconstrued
the application of the case law entirely.
[12]
That she failed to determine whether the trust
relationship had been breached, and wholly ignored evidence speaking
to this. She
focused on the value of the item in question, and not
the testimony presented.
Remedy
[13]
As a result of the above, the Second Respondent
arrived at a decision that no reasonable decision maker could reach.
[14]
The Second Respondent erred in law as she failed
to apply her mind to the relevant facts and evidence presented, which
constitutes
a gross irregularity and/or process.
[15]
She miscalculated the back-pay as 12 months x R12
000 equals R144 000.
Supplementary grounds
[16]
According to the Applicant, the Third Respondent
never seriously disputed that the roll used by the Applicant is
unique and that
it could not be purchased at retail stores
[17]
The photograph of the rolls, which was taken on
the day of the disciplinary hearing, takes the matter no further.
[18]
Further that to conclude that the roll was not the
property of the Applicant, the Second Respondent had to find that the
roll was
different to those used by the Applicant, and by making such
a finding, she would have had to reject the direct evidence presented

by Rall, the Applicant’s witness.
[19]
On the sanction, the Applicant argues that the
Second Respondent was unreasonable in concluding that if the Third
Respondent did
in fact steal the roll, dismissal was too harsh.
[20]
The Second Respondent did not consider the fact
that the Applicant’s witnesses testified that there is no
longer any trust
relationship between the Applicant and the Third
Respondent.
Award
[21]
The Second Respondent identified the issue that
she had to decide as being:
‘…
whether
the dismissal of the Applicant was substantively fair.’
[22]
In her analysis of the evidence, she states that
she is not convinced by the version of the Applicant. She explains
that it is difficult
to make a comparison from the pictures provided
in the Applicant’s bundle as all the rolls look similar. She
states that
it is also not possible to establish which of the rolls
is a two-ply version, as one could only see one sheet. Further that
there
is no picture of the two relevant rolls together, and she
questions why no such picture was taken.
[23]
She makes the point in the Award that the Third
Respondent was allowed to leave the Applicant’s premises with
the roll that
was found on him. Had security managers been so
convinced, it is more likely that they would have been at pains to
confiscate the
roll. She finds that the Third Respondent’s
version that he put the roll back into his bag because he thought his
explanation
was accepted is plausible.
[24]
Further that the Third Respondent did so in the
presence of all the security officers and security managers, and no
one tried to
stop him. Furthermore, the security manager’s
explanation that they did not pay attention as there was a lot
happening around
them is ‘lame’. She explains that she
concludes as such because the managers were called to the scene
specifically
to deal with the Third Respondent and not with anything
that may have been happening around them.
[25]
She questions why the roll that was found in the
Third Respondent’s possession was not confiscated. She refers
to this as
a fatal flaw in the Applicant’s case. She also
refers to video footage which was presented as evidence at the
arbitration,
and she finds that it does not serve to prove anything.
She states that the Third Respondent does not dispute that he had a
roll
in his possession. That she did not note any obvious reluctance
to have his shoulder bag searched. She finds that the Third
Respondent’s
explanation that he had to put his hand in the bag
to move the money and the biltong is plausible. Accordingly, she
finds that
on a holistic consideration of the evidence, the Third
Respondent’s version to be the more probable version and that
the
Applicant failed to discharge the onus to prove that the
Applicant is guilty of the allegations against him.
[26]
The Second Respondent then engages in a discussion
around the sanction. I do not intend to deal with this part of the
Award, as
it will be apparent in the analysis of the evidence and the
legal position below.
[27]
In her conclusion, the Second Respondent found
that the dismissal of the Third Respondent was unfair.
Analysis of the facts
[28]
The Applicant is involved in the packaging
business and recycling in Africa. It also makes rigid plastic
packaging, trays, film
and jumbo bins or crates.
[29]
The Third Respondent was employed as a Winder
Operator since 2009. His duties include setting of machines, checking
the quality
of products, ordering product material, determining
whether packaging matched with the product, reporting deviations and
compliance
with what is referred to as HAVVP procedures.
[30]
The circumstances of the stop and search of the
Third Respondent are largely undisputed. It started with him being
suspected of
theft of toilet paper arising from a tip off. On 21
October 2022, at the end of his work shift, he was stopped and
searched by
security. Among his possessions, a roll was found inside
his bag after he emptied the contents of the bag.
[31]
Rall, one of the Applicant’s witnesses, took
pictures of the roll that the Third Respondent allegedly brought from
home in
different positions, one picture showed the roll from above
with the middle hole being visible, and another picture showed only

the side of the roll. These pictures are alleged to have been taken
on the day of the incident on 21 October 2022. As to why Rall
did not
take a picture of the Applicant’s roll, on 21 October 2022, he
stated that there was a lot happening at the security
office at the
time. This explanation makes no sense whatsoever. The picture of the
roll that the Third Respondent had allegedly
brought from home
provides no credible evidence of a comparison at the time of the
incident. Even if Rall says he compared the
toilet rolls on the spot,
the picture of both toilet rolls would have gone a long way to
support his version.
[32]
The next picture shows two rolls, with the sheet
of the rolls showing in both pictures. According to the handwritten
note accompanying
the picture, the picture on the left is the roll of
the Third Respondent, which he brought from home. The picture is
alleged to
have been taken on the day of the disciplinary hearing.
[33]
At this point, things start taking a rather
bizarre turn. Firstly, there is no explanation as to why only the
roll that the Third
Respondent allegedly brought from home was taken
on the day of the incident. While the picture of the sample of the
Applicant’s
roll was not taken on the same day side by side
with the one the Third Respondent allegedly brought from home.
[34]
At the time of the disciplinary hearing, it was
apparent that the proverbial horse had bolted. Taking a picture
comparing the roll
that the Third Respondent allegedly brought from
home (for purposes of the hearing, it would appear) next to the roll
of the Applicant
does not provide proof of any offence having been
committed by the Third Respondent on 21 October 2022.
[35]
It is simply unbelievable that the Third
Respondent was then allowed to place the suspected stolen roll,
which, according to his
version, he had brought from home, back in
his bag on 21 October 2022, and he was allowed to leave with it. This
is captured on
video, and this evidence is common cause. It is the
explanation by Arendse, the Employer’s other witness, that is
incredible.
He stated that he did not pay attention as the security
office was very busy at the time. This is just unfathomable.
[36]
The above shows firstly that the Applicant’s
case was botched from the moment of the investigation. The
photographs of the
suspected stolen roll, together with a photograph
of the Applicant’s toilet roll, would have almost invariably
proven the
guilt or otherwise of the Third Respondent. Conveniently
or by some stroke of ‘misfortune’, Rall and the rest of
the
contingent of the Applicant’s staff did not deem it
necessary to ensure that those comparative pictures were taken for
posterity.
[37]
Having failed on the above score, a failure that
is frankly inexcusable, there was a second opportunity to preserve
the evidence
necessary to prove the guilt or otherwise of the Third
Respondent; instead, the Third Respondent was allowed to leave the
premises
with the suspected stolen roll. The real and best evidence
was lost by the Applicant at this juncture. The Third Respondent was

not stealing the roll; implicitly, he had permission to leave with
the roll because, once again, all those present did not deem
it
necessary to confiscate the ‘exhibit’.
[38]
It is even more troubling considering the scene
was teaming with the Applicant’s security personnel. The
calibre of those
who witnessed the incident on 21 October 2022 on
behalf of the Applicant needs only to be enumerated to be understood.
Those present
included: Rall (Manager), Kwati (Security Officer),
Arendse and (Safety and Security Manager). These were not junior
security personnel
who did not know their responsibilities; their
collective skills set ought to have enabled them to deal with the
scene more professionally
and effectively than they did. They failed
in the execution of their duties.
[39]
In truth and in fact, the Applicant’s case
collapsed at its inception, namely at the point of the initial
investigation of
the alleged theft or attempt to remove company
property without authorization and permission. The initial
investigation was heavily
compromised.
Legal Analysis
[40]
Schedule
8, item 7 of the Labour Relations Act
[1]
as amended provides that:
‘
Any
person who is determining whether a dismissal for misconduct is
unfair should consider-
(a)
whether or not the employee contravened a rule or standard regulating
conduct in, or of relevance to, the workplace; and
(b)
if a rule or standard was contravened, whether or not-
(i)
the rule was a valid or reasonable rule or standard;
(ii)
the employee was aware, or could reasonably be expected to
have been aware, of the
rule or standard;
(iii)
the rule or standard has been consistently applied by the
employer; and
(iv)
dismissal was an appropriate sanction for the contravention of the
rule or standard.
[41]
I will return to item (a) above in a moment. In terms of items
(b)(i), (ii) and (iv), there is no dispute that those issues are

common cause on the facts of this case. Regarding item (b)(iii), the
Third Respondent argued that in the case of one Ronel, who
was found
guilty of possession of company toilet paper, the rule was not
applied consistently. In its reply, the Applicant indicated
that she
was, in fact, dismissed, but she was reinstated on appeal.
Accordingly, this issue can be put to rest on the basis that
the rule
has been applied consistently.
[42]
I turn now back to item (a), namely: “
whether
or not the employee contravened a rule or standard regulating conduct
in, or of relevance to, the workplace?”.
[43]
It has been held that the
mental element is present if the employee knew that the goods did not
belong to him/her and he/she intended
to remove the property
permanently from the owner, knowing that he/she is not entitled to do
so. However, where the employee genuinely
believes that he/she is
authorised to consume the goods, he/she is not guilty of theft
[2]
.
[44]
In light of the manner in which the investigation of the alleged
offence was handled as illustrated above, there is only one
conclusion
that can be reached. And that is that the Third Respondent
did not
contravene a rule or standard regulating
conduct in, or of relevance to, the workplace. The Applicant failed
to prove on a balance
of probabilities that the Third Respondent
committed:
‘
Theft
or unauthorized possession of Company Property: in that on the 21
st
of
October 2022, security found a roll of toilet paper in your
possession after your shift had ended. The toilet paper was the same

brand as what the company are using.
Dishonesty: In that you
attempted to remove company property without authorization and
permission.’
Conclusion
[45]
As indicated above, once the Second Respondent found that the
Applicant failed to discharge the onus to prove that the Third
Respondent
was guilty of the allegations against him, that should
have been the end of the enquiry as she identified it in the Award.
Accordingly,
whether dismissal was an appropriate sanction, as a
separate enquiry, does not arise where the guilt of the Third
Respondent has
not been proved on a balance of probabilities nor
inferred from the Applicant’s conduct. It is apparent that the
Second Respondent
acted
ex abudanti
cautela
in
addressing the issue of the sanction, and she cannot be faulted for
that.
[46]
Accordingly, the Second Respondent reached a decision that a
reasonable arbitrator would have reached when presented
with the same
set of facts and the same legal material.
[47]
On her calculation of the back pay, it is obvious that she made a
typographical error in the Award, she clearly stated
that a period of
17 months had by then lapsed since the dismissal and that the delays
were beyond the control of either of the
parties. She accordingly
deemed it appropriate to limit the backpay to 10 months. Hence the
amount of R120 000 on the basis that
the Third Respondent was earning
R12 000 per month.
Order
In
light of the above, there is no reason to interfere with the Second
Respondent’s Award, save to update the relevant dates.
Accordingly:
1.  The application
is dismissed.
2.  The dismissal of
the Third Respondent, Theodore April, was substantively unfair.
3.  The Applicant is
ordered to reinstate the Third Respondent with full back pay from the
date of dismissal.
4.  The back pay is
limited to 10 months' compensation, amounting to R120 000.
5.  The above amount
is to be paid to the Third Respondent by 28 February 2026.
6.  The Third
Respondent must report for duty on 2 February 2026.
7.  There is no
order as to costs.
M Mkhatshwa
Acting
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances:
For the
Applicant:
Mr N Du
Preez
Instructed
by:

Van Der Spuy & Partners
For the Third
Respondent:    Ms Z. Hlongwane
Instructed
by:

National Union of Mineworkers of South Africa
[1]
Act 66 of 1995, as amended.
[2]
Matsekoleng
v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd
[2013]
2 BLLR 130
(LAC).

Back to Law Reports