Long v South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd and Others

Allan Long was employed as district manager for South African Breweries' Border District from 1 January 2008. In December 2012, irregularities were discovered regarding the vehicle fleet, including fraudulent licensing activities, unlicensed vehicles, and inadequate maintenance. On 10 May 2013, an unlicensed and unroadworthy trailer was involved in a fatal accident. An investigation was conducted and on 19 May 2013, a fleet audit revealed multiple vehicles were still not roadworthy and unlicensed, with no corrective action taken after the fatal accident. On 21 May 2013, Long was suspended pending investigation. On 19 August 2013, Long was charged with gross dereliction of duties, gross negligence, dishonesty, and bringing the company into disrepute. A disciplinary hearing commenced on 28 August 2013. On 11 October 2013, Long was acquitted on dishonesty but found guilty of dereliction of duties, gross negligence, and bringing the company into disrepute. He was dismissed on 14 October 2013. Long filed internal appeal which was unsuccessful. He then referred the matter to the CCMA regarding both his suspension and dismissal.

• Whether an employee is entitled to a pre-suspension hearing before a precautionary suspension
• Whether the precautionary suspension constituted an unfair labour practice
• Whether the dismissal was substantively fair
• Whether the Labour Court properly exercised its discretion in awarding costs in a labour matter

1. The application for condonation is granted. 2. Leave to appeal on the merits is refused. 3. Leave to appeal against the costs order of the Labour Court is granted. 4. The appeal against the costs order is upheld and the costs order granted by the Labour Court is set aside. 5. No order as to costs is made in this Court and the Labour Court.

Where a suspension is precautionary (rather than disciplinary) in nature, there is no requirement to afford an employee an opportunity to make representations prior to suspension. The fairness of a precautionary suspension is determined by assessing: (1) whether there is a fair reason for the suspension (such as to enable an unhindered investigation), and (2) whether it materially prejudices the employee (which will generally be ameliorated where the employee receives full pay during suspension). In labour matters, courts may not automatically apply the principle that costs follow the result. Section 162 of the Labour Relations Act requires that costs orders be made according to the requirements of law and fairness, with consideration of the conduct of the parties. A failure to exercise this discretion judicially by providing reasons and considering these factors amounts to a misdirection entitling an appellate court to interfere with the costs order.

The Court noted that the first respondent strongly urged that the applicant's senior position, commensurate responsibility, and remuneration package took the case out of the ordinary and warranted an adverse costs order, but did not explain why. The Court observed that in the absence of reasons why the principle in Zungu should not apply, there was no basis to make an adverse costs order. The Court also noted that each party achieved a measure of success in the Constitutional Court proceedings. The judgment reinforces that labour courts serve a conciliatory function and parties, particularly individual employees, should not be discouraged from approaching these courts. Costs orders may damage ongoing employment relationships and affect industrial peace.

This case is significant in South African labour law for clarifying two important principles: (1) It confirms that precautionary suspensions (as opposed to disciplinary suspensions) do not require a pre-suspension hearing, provided the suspension is for a legitimate investigative purpose and the employee is not materially prejudiced (particularly where paid during suspension). (2) It reinforces the principle established in Zungu that in labour matters, courts must not automatically apply the general rule that costs follow the result. Section 162 of the Labour Relations Act requires courts to exercise discretion judicially by considering the requirements of law and fairness, and the conduct of parties, before making adverse costs orders. The judgment emphasizes that judicial officers must provide reasons when making costs orders in labour disputes.