Labour Court rules dismissal of veteran bus mechanic was justified after gearbox damage.
Image: AI Generated
The Labour Court in Gqeberha in the Eastern Cape has overturned an arbitration ruling that had found the dismissal of a long-serving mechanic by Algoa Bus Company to be substantively unfair, concluding instead that the company was justified in firing him after a bus gearbox suffered catastrophic damage following a routine service.
Judge Robert Lagrange ruled that the arbitrator had reached an unreasonable conclusion by ignoring the most plausible explanation for the damage — a lack of lubrication during a test drive after the gearbox had been serviced.
The case centres on Gerhard Goosen, a qualified service mechanic who had worked for Algoa Bus Company for around 30 years. He was dismissed after a bus gearbox sustained severe internal damage shortly after he and two assistants carried out an oil service.
According to the company, the damage occurred because the gearbox had been taken for a test drive without sufficient oil. The repair cost was estimated at about R490,000 after the gearbox was sent to specialists for assessment.
Before the service, the bus had reportedly travelled about 2,000 kilometres since its previous maintenance without any complaints or transmission problems from drivers.
After draining the gearbox oil and replacing the filter, Goosen took the bus for a short test drive of roughly two kilometres within the company’s premises. During the drive, the vehicle stalled and was returned to the service pit, after which it could no longer be driven due to the gearbox failure.
An investigation by gearbox specialists ZF Services found that the clutch discs inside the gearbox had overheated and worn due to a lack of lubrication. The report identified two possible causes: a “stall test” or insufficient lubrication. However, it was common cause that no stall test had been performed on the vehicle, leaving a lack of lubrication as the likely explanation.
Goosen denied that the gearbox had been driven without oil. He maintained that about 20 litres of oil had been pumped into the gearbox before the test drive and that an additional three litres were added afterwards to top it up. When the damaged gearbox was later drained, approximately 23 litres of oil were recovered.
The dispute was referred to arbitration under the South African Road Passenger Bargaining Council. The arbitrator ruled that although the dismissal had been procedurally fair, it was substantively unfair because the employer had not proven that Goosen’s negligence caused the damage.
The arbitrator reasoned that other possible causes, such as a stall test performed earlier by a driver or overheating linked to a crack in the gearbox housing, could not be ruled out. On that basis, the arbitrator found the evidence to be evenly balanced and held that the company had failed to discharge the burden of proof.
However, the Labour Court found that the arbitrator had committed a “gross irregularity” by speculating about explanations that were never advanced by the employee or put to witnesses during the arbitration.
Judge Lagrange said the arbitrator should have drawn the “most plausible and natural inference” from the uncontested expert report — namely, that the gearbox was damaged due to insufficient lubrication during the test drive.
The court also criticised the arbitrator for failing to properly consider video footage showing Goosen indicating immediately after the test drive that the oil level needed to be checked, before spending time with colleagues near the gearbox.
According to the court, these circumstances supported the employer’s version that the gearbox may not have been properly filled with oil before the test drive.
Judge Lagrange concluded that the arbitrator’s decision was one that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached based on the evidence.
The court noted that Goosen had signed off on the job card confirming the oil and filter replacement and had overall responsibility for ensuring the gearbox was properly serviced before the test drive.
Given the scale of the damage and the basic nature of the task involved, the court found that dismissal was an appropriate sanction despite Goosen’s long service with the company.
The Labour Court ultimately reviewed and set aside the arbitration award, replacing it with a finding that the dismissal was substantively fair.
IOL News