Sidumo and Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd and Others

Mr Z Sidumo, a long-serving employee of Rustenburg Platinum Mines with an unblemished disciplinary record, was dismissed for negligence and failure to follow prescribed security search procedures at a high-security redressing plant. Although he failed on numerous occasions to conduct proper searches, no proven losses were directly linked to his conduct. Following an internal disciplinary hearing and appeal confirming dismissal, Mr Sidumo referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA. The CCMA commissioner found the misconduct proven but held dismissal to be too harsh and ordered reinstatement with compensation and a warning. The employer unsuccessfully challenged the award in the Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court, but succeeded in the Supreme Court of Appeal, which held that commissioners must defer to the employer’s choice of sanction and that CCMA arbitration constituted administrative action reviewable under PAJA. Mr Sidumo and COSATU appealed to the Constitutional Court.

Leave to appeal was granted. The appeal was upheld. The Supreme Court of Appeal’s judgment was set aside, and the CCMA commissioner’s award reinstating Mr Sidumo was restored.

This is a foundational case in South African labour law. It clarified that CCMA commissioners must independently assess the fairness of dismissals without deferring to employers. It also established the constitutional standard of review for CCMA arbitration awards, replacing the Carephone test with the reasonableness standard now known as the Sidumo test.