Labour Court affirms dismissal of mine worker for safety violations at Exxaro.
Image: AI Generated
The Labour Court in Johannesburg has overturned an arbitration award that had reinstated a mineworker at Exxaro Coal Mine Mpumalanga, finding that his dismissal for safety-related misconduct was both procedurally and substantively fair.
Acting Judge Sarah Saunders reviewed and set aside a ruling by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), which had earlier found the dismissal of fitter artisan B.T. Shongwe to be unfair and ordered his reinstatement with back pay of over R277,000.
Shongwe, who had been employed at Exxaro’s Matla Coal Mine for about 12 years, was dismissed following an incident in May 2022. He was accused of gross negligence after being found on top of a feeder breaker that had allegedly not been isolated and locked out in accordance with the mine’s safety procedures.
The employer maintained that Shongwe was actively working on the machine—specifically adding oil to its gearbox—without ensuring it was disconnected from its power source and secured with a personal lock. This, the company argued, posed a serious safety risk.
Shongwe, however, denied working on the machine, insisting that he was merely conducting a visual inspection, which would not have required the same safety precautions.
The CCMA commissioner had accepted Shongwe’s version, finding the dismissal both procedurally and substantively unfair. The ruling criticised the employer’s evidence and ordered reinstatement with back pay.
However, the Labour Court found that the commissioner committed several material errors in assessing the evidence, particularly in handling conflicting versions of events.
Judge Saunders held that the commissioner failed to properly evaluate credibility and probabilities and instead rejected the employer’s evidence on irrational or insufficient grounds. For example, the commissioner dismissed testimony that the machine was powered—despite the visible lights—on the basis that witnesses had not physically checked the power source.
The court described this reasoning as unreasonable, noting that the presence of lights strongly indicated that the machine was still connected to power.
The court found that the employer’s witnesses provided consistent and corroborated accounts that Shongwe had been working on the feeder breaker. It also highlighted that there was no apparent motive for multiple employees to fabricate such allegations.
By contrast, Shongwe’s denial was unsupported and included claims that the witnesses were lying without providing a plausible explanation.
The court further criticised the commissioner’s reliance on minor inconsistencies—such as the distance of bystanders or whether welding was taking place—which were not decisive to the core issue of whether Shongwe was working on the machine.
A key issue was whether the mine’s “isolate and lockout” safety procedure had to be followed. The court emphasised that both steps were essential and that failing to apply a personal lock—even if the machine had been isolated—still constituted a breach of safety rules.
It was common cause that Shongwe had not applied his lock, despite having the necessary equipment and experience. The court held that this alone amounted to misconduct if he was indeed working on the machine.
The Labour Court also rejected the commissioner’s finding that the dismissal was procedurally unfair. The commissioner had held that the employer was required to provide three alternative dates for disciplinary hearings.
Judge Saunders found no legal or contractual basis for such an obligation, describing the requirement as unreasonable. The court noted that Shongwe had been on paid suspension for an extended period and that the employer had made multiple attempts to proceed with the hearing.
The court ultimately substituted the CCMA award with a finding that Shongwe’s dismissal was both procedurally and substantively fair. No costs order was made.
IOL News