Constitutional Court Ofsouth Africa

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OFSOUTH AFRICA

Rustenburg Platinum Minev South African Equity Workers Associationobo MeyerBesterand Others

CCT 127/17

Dateofjudgment: 17 May 2018

MEDIASUMMARY

Thefollowingexplanatorynoteisprovidedtoassistthemediainreportingthiscaseand is not binding on theConstitutionalCourt or anymember of the Court.

On17May2018at10h00,theConstitutionalCourthandeddownjudgmentinan application for leaveto appeal against an order oftheLabourAppeal Court.

MrBester,whoisrepresentedbythefirstrespondent,theSouthAfricanEquityWorkers Association (SAEWA),aregisteredtrade union,wasanemployeeoftheapplicant, RustenburgPlatinumMine(“themine”).DuringApril2013,MrBesterattemptedtoraise aparkingissuewiththemine’schiefsafetyofficer,MrSedumedi.Hisattemptswere ignoredwhichledtotheeventsof24April2013.Onthatday,MrBesterallegedly interrupted a safetymeeting,and demanded theremoval ofacarparked next to his. Heis saidtohavepointedhisfingeratMrSedumedi,saidinaloudvoice“verwyderdaardie swartmansevoertuig”,andthreatenedtotakethematterfurtherbyapproaching management.On25April2013,MrBesterwaschargedwithinsubordinationfor disruptingasafetymeeting.Inaddition,hewaschargedwithmakingracialremarksfor referring toafellowemployeeasa“swartman”.He wassuspendedand on28May2013, after being foundguiltyon both chargesat a disciplinaryhearing, hewas dismissed.

MrBesterapproachedtheCommissionforConciliation,MediationandArbitration (CCMA)andon19December2013,thecommissionerpresidingoverthearbitration,found thatMrBester’sdismissalwasbothsubstantivelyaswellasprocedurallyunfair.MrBester was awardedreinstatementand back payof R191 843.21.

ThemineapproachedtheLabourCourtforareviewofthisdecision.On26January2016, theLabourCourtfoundthatthecommissionerhadreachedadecisionthatnoreasonable decision-makercouldhavereached.TheLabourCourtheldthattheuseofthewords “swartman”,withinthecontextofthiscase,wasderogatoryandracistwhichconstituted anactofseriousmisconductandwarrantedthedismissalofMrBester.TheLabourCourt

tookintoconsiderationthattheminehad,on16April2013,circulatedamemorandumto allemployees,whichclearlyindicatedthattheminewouldnottolerateabusiveand derogatorylanguagein theworkplace.

SAEWAlodgedanappealintheLabourAppealCourt.On3May2017theLabourAppeal Courthandeddownjudgmentinwhichitheldthatthe LabourCourthaderredbyapplying asubjectivetestto determinewhether theterm“swartman”wasracistandderogatory.It statedthatthecorrecttestwasobjective andmustincludea considerationofthecontextin whichthewordswereuttered–acourtmustbesatisfiedthattheonlyreasonableinference fromtheprovenfactswasthattheuseofthewords“swartman”wasracistandderogatory andthatitwassaidwiththeintentiontodemean.TheLabourAppealCourtfoundthatMr Bestercouldhavesaid“swartman”asawaytodescribethedriveroftheothervehicle, whosenamehedidnotknow.Onthisbasis,theLabourAppealCourtheldthatMrBester’s dismissal was both substantivelyand procedurallyunfair.

Theminelodgedanapplicationforleavetoappealagainsttheorder of the LabourAppeal CourtintheConstitutionalCourt.Thematterwasheardon9November 2017.

ThemainissuetobedecidedintheConstitutionalCourtwaswhetherreferringtoafellow employeeasa“swartman”,withinthecontextofthiscase,wasracistandderogatory and whetheritwasunreasonableforthecommissioneroftheCCMAtohavefoundthattheuse ofthetermwasraciallyinnocuous.Afurtherissueforconsiderationwaswhether,ifit were foundto be racist and derogatory, dismissal was an appropriatesanction.

InaunanimousjudgmentpennedbyTheronJ,theConstitutionalCourtheldthatthecorrect testwaswhetherareasonable,objectiveandinformedpersonwould,onthecorrectfacts perceive“swartman”toberacistandderogatory.TheronJheldthattheLabourAppeal Court’sstartingpoint–thatphrasesarepresumptivelyneutral–failstorecognisethe impactofthelegacyofapartheidandracialsegregationthathasleftuswitharacially chargedpresent.Thisstartingpointcarriesthedangerthatthedominant,racistviewofthe past–ofwhatisneutral,normalandacceptable–mayskewanobjectiveenquiry.By ignoringtherealityofourpastofinstitutionallyentrenchedracismandbybeginningthe enquiryfromapresumptionthatthecontextisneutral,theLabourAppealCourtsanitised thecontextinwhichinwhichthephrase“swartman”wasused.AssuchtheLabourAppeal Court,likethecommissioneroftheCCMA,failedtotakeintoaccountthetotalityof circumstancesinthiscaseandcametoanunreasonableconclusionthat“swartman”was usedinnocuously.Consequently,TheronJheldthatLabourCourtwascorrectinreviewing andsettingasidethecommissioner’sawardashehadreachedaconclusionthata reasonabledecision-makercouldnothavereached.TheLabourAppealCourt’sorder thereforestood to be setaside.

Withregardstosanction,TheronJheldthatasMrBesterhaddemonstratedacomplete lackofremorseforhisactionsandmadenoattempttoapologise,dismissal,underthese circumstances, was anappropriatesanction.

Intheresult,theappealwasupheldandthedecisionoftheLabourAppeal Courtwasset aside. No order as to costswas made.