Pilanesburg Platinum Mines (Pty) Ltd v Ramabulana

The respondent was employed by the appellant mining company as a Social and Economic Development (SED) manager under a written contract. In May 2012, following serious complaints by the local Bakgatla Ba Kgafela community (which was also a material shareholder of the mine) alleging corruption and misconduct relating to recruitment practices, the respondent was escorted from the workplace for her own safety but continued to be paid. Over an eight-month period, the appellant attempted to resolve the situation through discussions and offered a severance package, which the respondent rejected. The community remained adamant that the respondent should not return. Ultimately, the appellant terminated her employment on 31 January 2013, citing operational reasons. The respondent approached the Labour Court under section 77 of the BCEA, alleging that the termination breached clause 6.1 of her employment contract due to failure to follow contractual and statutory dismissal procedures.

The appeal was reinstated and upheld. The Labour Court’s order was set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the application with costs. No costs order was made in the Labour Appeal Court.

The case clarifies the distinction between contractual claims under section 77 of the BCEA and unfair dismissal claims under the LRA. It confirms that employees who elect a contractual remedy bear the onus of proving breach and damages, and cannot rely on fairness considerations or LRA procedural protections unless the contractual provisions are triggered.