Ludick v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd and Others

Mr Jean Ludick was dismissed by Vodacom (Pty) Ltd on 24 August 2018. He referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA, where Commissioner Sue Wright found the dismissal to be substantively unfair. In an award dated 18 June 2019, the commissioner ordered reinstatement and six months’ backpay but stated that reinstatement was to occur ‘on 1 July 2019’. Vodacom reinstated Ludick on that date and paid six months’ backpay, but refused to recognise leave accrual, annual increases, and bonuses for the backpay period, contending that reinstatement was not retrospective. Ludick applied to the CCMA under section 144(b) of the Labour Relations Act to vary the award, arguing that the relief was ambiguously worded and did not reflect the commissioner’s intention to order partial retrospective reinstatement. The commissioner dismissed the variation application, holding that she lacked jurisdiction to interpret her award. Ludick then brought a review application to the Labour Court.

The ruling of 14 November 2019 refusing variation was reviewed and set aside. The original arbitration award of 18 June 2019 was varied to provide expressly for retrospective reinstatement to a date six months prior to the award, together with six months’ backpay. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs.

The case clarifies the relationship between reinstatement and backpay under section 193 of the LRA and confirms that backpay is inseparable from retrospective reinstatement. It also affirms the scope of section 144(b) of the LRA, emphasising that arbitrators may and must correct ambiguities in awards to give effect to their true intention, and that a failure to do so constitutes a reviewable misdirection.