IRM1501 PORTFOLIO
MAY 2024
EXAM QUESTIONS
QUESTION 1
The Constitutional Court of South Africa in the case of Sidumo v Rustenburg
Platinum Mines Ltd & Others 2007 12 BLLR 1097 (CC) devised a new test to be
applied when determining the fairness of the dismissal. Discuss the case of Sidumo
in the prescribed format (facts, legal question, reasons for the decision or ratio
decidendi and the findings of the case) and highlight the test that the Constitutional
Court designed in deciding on fairness in labour law matters.
Case Summary: Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd & Others
Facts:
Mr. Sidumo was employed by Rustenburg Platinum Mines as a security officer responsible
for patrolling a high-security facility where precious metals were separated. He was
dismissed for failing to follow established search procedures, which the Mine viewed as
misconduct. Mr. Sidumo contested his dismissal, referring the dispute to the Commission
for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) under the Labour Relations Act (LRA).
The CCMA commissioner found him guilty of misconduct but noted the absence of
dishonesty and considered his clean 15-year service record. Consequently, the
commissioner ordered Mr. Sidumo's reinstatement with three months' compensation and
a written warning. The Mine applied to the Labour Court to review and set aside this award,
but the application was dismissed. The Mine's appeal to the Labour Appeal Court was also
dismissed. However, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruled in favor of the Mine,
holding that the dismissal was fair. Mr. Sidumo then applied to the Constitutional Court for
leave to appeal against the SCA's decision.
Legal Question:
The main legal question was whether the CCMA commissioner’s decision to reinstate Mr.
Sidumo was one that a reasonable decision-maker could reach and whether the SCA erred
in overturning this decision by substituting its own judgment for that of the commissioner.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Constitutional Court had to determine the correct standard of review for CCMA
arbitration awards in dismissal disputes. The Court's majority held that in deciding whether
, a dismissal is fair, a commissioner must consider all relevant circumstances but does not
need to defer to the employer’s decision. Instead, the test is whether the decision reached
by the commissioner is one that a reasonable decision-maker could reach. The standard
of review established was whether the commissioner's decision was one that a reasonable
decision-maker could not reach, ensuring adherence to the constitutional right to fair labour
practices.
Findings:
Majority Opinion (Navsa AJ):
Administrative Action: The majority concurred with the SCA that CCMA arbitration
proceedings constituted administrative action but were not subject to the Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act (PAJA). Instead, they applied the requirements of section 33 of
the Constitution, which guarantees lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair administrative
action.
Reasonableness Standard: The Court concluded that the appropriate standard for
reviewing a CCMA commissioner’s decision is whether it is a decision that a reasonable
decision-maker could reach. This standard is in line with the purpose of the review
provisions of the LRA and constitutional principles.
Application to Facts: The majority found no evidence of loss suffered by the Mine due to
Mr. Sidumo's misconduct and noted the absence of dishonesty. While acknowledging Mr.
Sidumo’s failure to admit his misconduct, the Court balanced this against his long, clean
service record. The commissioner’s decision to reinstate Mr. Sidumo was deemed one that
a reasonable decision-maker could reach.
Minority Opinion (Ngcobo J):
Judicial vs. Administrative Function: Ngcobo J argued that CCMA arbitration does not
constitute administrative action but is adjudicative in nature, akin to a court of law.
Statutory Grounds for Review: He emphasized that review should focus on whether the
commissioner applied their mind to the material issues and whether any gross irregularity
occurred as per section 145(2)(a) of the LRA.
Gross Irregularity: The minority held that if a commissioner failed to consider material
issues or rendered an unfair award, it could be set aside for exceeding their powers or
committing gross irregularity.
Concurrences (O'Regan J and Sachs J):
MAY 2024
EXAM QUESTIONS
QUESTION 1
The Constitutional Court of South Africa in the case of Sidumo v Rustenburg
Platinum Mines Ltd & Others 2007 12 BLLR 1097 (CC) devised a new test to be
applied when determining the fairness of the dismissal. Discuss the case of Sidumo
in the prescribed format (facts, legal question, reasons for the decision or ratio
decidendi and the findings of the case) and highlight the test that the Constitutional
Court designed in deciding on fairness in labour law matters.
Case Summary: Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd & Others
Facts:
Mr. Sidumo was employed by Rustenburg Platinum Mines as a security officer responsible
for patrolling a high-security facility where precious metals were separated. He was
dismissed for failing to follow established search procedures, which the Mine viewed as
misconduct. Mr. Sidumo contested his dismissal, referring the dispute to the Commission
for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) under the Labour Relations Act (LRA).
The CCMA commissioner found him guilty of misconduct but noted the absence of
dishonesty and considered his clean 15-year service record. Consequently, the
commissioner ordered Mr. Sidumo's reinstatement with three months' compensation and
a written warning. The Mine applied to the Labour Court to review and set aside this award,
but the application was dismissed. The Mine's appeal to the Labour Appeal Court was also
dismissed. However, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruled in favor of the Mine,
holding that the dismissal was fair. Mr. Sidumo then applied to the Constitutional Court for
leave to appeal against the SCA's decision.
Legal Question:
The main legal question was whether the CCMA commissioner’s decision to reinstate Mr.
Sidumo was one that a reasonable decision-maker could reach and whether the SCA erred
in overturning this decision by substituting its own judgment for that of the commissioner.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Constitutional Court had to determine the correct standard of review for CCMA
arbitration awards in dismissal disputes. The Court's majority held that in deciding whether
, a dismissal is fair, a commissioner must consider all relevant circumstances but does not
need to defer to the employer’s decision. Instead, the test is whether the decision reached
by the commissioner is one that a reasonable decision-maker could reach. The standard
of review established was whether the commissioner's decision was one that a reasonable
decision-maker could not reach, ensuring adherence to the constitutional right to fair labour
practices.
Findings:
Majority Opinion (Navsa AJ):
Administrative Action: The majority concurred with the SCA that CCMA arbitration
proceedings constituted administrative action but were not subject to the Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act (PAJA). Instead, they applied the requirements of section 33 of
the Constitution, which guarantees lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair administrative
action.
Reasonableness Standard: The Court concluded that the appropriate standard for
reviewing a CCMA commissioner’s decision is whether it is a decision that a reasonable
decision-maker could reach. This standard is in line with the purpose of the review
provisions of the LRA and constitutional principles.
Application to Facts: The majority found no evidence of loss suffered by the Mine due to
Mr. Sidumo's misconduct and noted the absence of dishonesty. While acknowledging Mr.
Sidumo’s failure to admit his misconduct, the Court balanced this against his long, clean
service record. The commissioner’s decision to reinstate Mr. Sidumo was deemed one that
a reasonable decision-maker could reach.
Minority Opinion (Ngcobo J):
Judicial vs. Administrative Function: Ngcobo J argued that CCMA arbitration does not
constitute administrative action but is adjudicative in nature, akin to a court of law.
Statutory Grounds for Review: He emphasized that review should focus on whether the
commissioner applied their mind to the material issues and whether any gross irregularity
occurred as per section 145(2)(a) of the LRA.
Gross Irregularity: The minority held that if a commissioner failed to consider material
issues or rendered an unfair award, it could be set aside for exceeding their powers or
committing gross irregularity.
Concurrences (O'Regan J and Sachs J):
