Shoprite's Attempt to Overturn Dismissal Ruling Rejected by Labour Court

In a notable ruling on 26 August 2024, the Labour Court of South Africa in Gqeberha dismissed an application by Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd to set aside an arbitral award made by a commissioner of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). The award pertained to the unfair dismissal of Mr. Godfrey Makaloi, a former Shoprite baker, and had directed his reinstatement with back-pay.

The application, filed by Shoprite, claimed that the CCMA's decision was beyond the bounds of a reasonable decision-maker, given the evidence presented. Acting Judge Smith, who presided over the matter, meticulously reviewed the arbitration proceedings, specifically scrutinizing the video footage that allegedly proved Mr. Makaloi’s misconduct. According to the company, the footage showed Mr. Makaloi consuming Shoprite stock (sugar) outside of a designated area—an act that led to his dismissal.

Shoprite faced an uphill battle in convincing the court to overturn the CCMA’s decision. The judge took into consideration that while Mr. Makaloi admitted to stirring sugar into his warm drink, he did not concede to drinking it or using the company's sugar. The court found that the inference made by Shoprite's management, based on CCTV footage, was not the only reasonable one that could be drawn. Other evidence, such as the lack of a stock-take demonstrating stock shrinkage, bolstered the Commissioner's conclusion that Shoprite had failed to prove rule contravention.

The dismissal of the application laid emphasis on the sound rationale employed by the Commissioner during the arbitration proceedings. Judge Smith highlighted the limitations of inferential reasoning in the absence of direct evidence. Without clear proof of misconduct, the charge of consumption could not sustain, since the video evidence did not show Mr. Makaloi's act of consumption but only the act of stirring sugar into his drink.

Beyond the direct challenge to the validity of the evidence, Shoprite's application also suffered from a potential procedural misstep. The application was delivered on a date that appeared to exceed the statutory six-week period prescribed for review applications, although this point was not definitively resolved in the judgment. Nonetheless, the judge indicated that timely submission is critical, and failure to adhere could be grounds for dismissal independent of the substantive issues raised.

The case reaffirms the principle that employers must meet a rigorous burden of proof when alleging employee misconduct. The stringent scrutiny applied by the Labour Court in its analysis upholds not only the procedural sanctity of labour dispute resolutions but also the rights of employees to fair treatment under South African Labour Law.