In addressing an appeal stemming from misconduct during the 2018 National Strike in the Plastics Industry in the case of National Union of Metalworkers of SA obo Motlang & Others v Polyoak Packaging (Pty) Ltd & Others 2025 46 ILJ 552 (LAC), Judge Van Niekerk raised critical questions about the efficacy of South Africa's statutory dispute resolution system. His ruling underscored the dysfunctionality that often hinders timely and effective resolution of employment disputes. This case, which spanned several years, has sparked a crucial conversation about whether the existing system truly serves its intended purpose of delivering swift justice to both employers and employees.
Brief summary of the Matter and Judgment
In 2018, the employees of Polyoak Packaging (Pty) Ltd, being members of the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa, participated in a National Strike in the Plastics Industry. During the strike, some employees engaged in misconduct, including harassing non-striking workers and blockading access roads to Polyoak's premises.
Polyoak obtained an interlocutory interdict against the striking employees who were embarking on acts of misconduct, ordering them to maintain a 150-meter distance from the premises. Despite this, some workers violated the order and continued the blockade and further harassed the non-striking employees. In response, Polyoak held an internal disciplinary inquiry regarding the misconduct relating to the blockading of the service road. The internal disciplinary enquiry took place over a period of 4 (four) days and was chaired by a Senior Commissioner of the CCMA. This led to the dismissal of certain employees after they were found guilty.
NUMSA then referred a dispute to the CCMA claiming that certain of its members were unfairly dismissed. The CCMA arbitrated the dispute relating to the alleged unfair dismissal and rendered an award on the 8th January 2021. Both NUMSA and Polyoak were dissatisfied with the Commissioner's award albeit for different reasons, which resulted in both launching an application for review in the Labour Court. NUMSA appealed the Labour Court's Judgment in the review application. Polyoak cross-appealed against the Labour Court's in the Review Application. The Labour Appeal Court dismissed the appeal launched by NUMSA and upheld the cross-appeal launched by Polyoak.
The Court, however, then made the important observation stating that the matter illustrates, in stark terms, the dysfunctionality of the statutory dispute resolution system applicable to Employment Disputes. The Court pointed out that the strike which gave rise to the dismissals had occurred six years prior to the Court's Judgment.
The Court went on to point out that an internal disciplinary enquiry was conducted by a Senior Commissioner of the CCMA, where both parties were represented by attorneys.
It was apparent to the Court that the disciplinary enquiry in effect counted for nothing except to satisfy the requirement of a fair procedure.
The very same evidence which was placed before the internal disciplinary enquiry was subsequently placed before the CCMA a year later. The arbitration process was completed some 3 (three) years after the date of dismissal, and the remainder of the time was occupied by the Review Application as well as the Appeal.
Analysis of the Judgment
The case highlights that the statutory dispute resolution mechanism, which is applicable to employment disputes, particularly unfair dismissal disputes, is not living up to the expectation of the legislature namely a simple and expeditious process, to bring finality to employment disputes which is prejudicial to both employees and employers who are entitled to a speedy resolution of employment disputes.
The area of the statutory dispute process which appears to have caused the Court some concern is that the internal disciplinary process, which in this case was comprehensive, was then duplicated in lengthy arbitration proceedings before the CCMA, which endured over a period of 3 (three) years. This is so as arbitration proceedings held under the auspices of the CCMA are presently de novo hearings which requires it to re-hear all the evidence led at a disciplinary enquiry.
The area which stands out as being problematic in the view of the Court is the fact the evidence led at an internal disciplinary enquiry under the current dispensation needs to be led afresh at arbitration before the CCMA. This on the face of it is non-sensical and it duplicitous.
Whilst the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) is currently considering various amendments to the Labour Relations Act, none of the proposed amendments contained in its report deal with the effectiveness of the current statutory dispute resolution system currently prescribed by the Act, which means that there is no prospect of this aspect being addressed in the near future.
It is no secret that the CCMA and the Labour Courts are stretched to capacity and that the hearing of matters is seriously delayed and in order to ensure that the CCMA and the Labour Courts fulfil their mandates, their case load requires to be reduced or at the very least the lead time to disputes becoming finalised needs to be curtailed.
It is appreciated that the unemployment rate in South Africa is unacceptably high and that there is a requirement to ensure that employees are not dismissed arbitrarily and indiscriminately, and that that there needs to be a system whereby dismissals in particular need to be undertaken in a fair manner in order not to offend the constitutional right of employees to fair labour practice, however, the system of dispute resolution needs to strike a balance between guarding against dismissals being effected in an arbitrary manner, and ensuring that any disputes arising from dismissals are finalized through a simple, fair and expeditious process.
Whatever the situation may be, there appears to be merit in the Court's view that the current dispute resolution system requires reform. Such reform should occur earlier rather than later.
It remains to be seen as to whether the Legislature will take heed of the Court's comments as highlighted in this Judgment and commence an investigation into how the current statutory dispute resolution process can be streamlined in order to render it more effective for both employees and employers.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
