Produce Hub (Pty) Ltd v Mathebula, Norman and Others

Produce Hub (Pty) Ltd applied to the Labour Court to review and set aside a CCMA arbitration award dated 26 February 2019. The third respondent, Mr Norman Mathebula, was employed as Chief Operations Officer and was responsible for company assets including pallets and customer stock. Over a period exceeding a year, more than 6,000 pallets went missing, largely due to theft by another senior manager, Mr Naidoo. Despite being warned about Naidoo’s prior theft and being responsible for implementing controls, Mathebula failed to conduct daily walkabouts, stocktaking, or implement adequate pallet controls. He also accepted undocumented cash from Naidoo allegedly from pallet sales. Mathebula was charged with breach of fiduciary duty and/or gross negligence, found guilty at a disciplinary enquiry, and dismissed. The CCMA Commissioner found the dismissal unfair and awarded six months’ compensation. Produce Hub sought review, alleging that the Commissioner failed to properly evaluate the evidence, incorrectly rejected employer witnesses as biased, excluded relevant evidence regarding customer stock losses, and misconceived the nature of the misconduct.

The arbitration award dated 26 February 2019 was reviewed and set aside. The matter was remitted to the CCMA to be heard afresh by a commissioner other than the first respondent. The applicant’s withdrawn application to introduce a second supplementary affidavit was struck out with costs; otherwise, each party was ordered to pay its own costs.

The case reaffirms the Labour Court’s supervisory role over CCMA arbitration awards and clarifies that commissioners must properly evaluate all relevant evidence and cannot dismiss employer testimony as biased without justification. It underscores the distinction between negligence/gross negligence and performance issues in senior management roles, and confirms that failure to implement controls over company assets may constitute misconduct justifying dismissal.