The applicants were employed as general workers by the respondent, a mining maintenance business. They resigned in September 2011, alleging that their employer made their working conditions intolerable through sustained racial discrimination, verbal abuse, physical assaults, and degrading accommodation arrangements. They referred disputes to the CCMA primarily described as unfair discrimination. During conciliation, it emerged that the dispute concerned constructive dismissal based on racial discrimination. After conciliation failed, a certificate of outcome was issued. The applicants instituted proceedings in the Labour Court alleging automatically unfair constructive dismissal under section 187(1)(f) of the Labour Relations Act. The respondent failed to oppose the claim, and default judgment was granted in favour of the applicants. The respondent later sought rescission, arguing that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction because constructive dismissal had not been conciliated and that evidence from conciliation proceedings was inadmissible.
Leave to appeal was granted. The appeal was upheld. The order of the Labour Appeal Court was set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the appeal. There was no order as to costs.
This case clarified the scope of confidentiality and privilege in CCMA conciliation proceedings under the pre-2015 rule 16. It affirmed that evidence regarding the nature of the dispute conciliated is not automatically privileged and may be admitted to establish jurisdiction. The judgment strengthened access to justice in labour disputes and emphasised a purposive, constitutionally compliant interpretation of labour legislation.