National Union of Mineworkers and Motlhoki & Others v Mazista Tiles (Pty) Ltd

The respondent employer, Mazista Tiles, wished to restructure its business to remain competitive. After more than a year of consultation with the union (National Union of Mineworkers) regarding various restructuring proposals, no consensus was reached. The union failed to engage with the employer's difficulties or offer alternative solutions, insisting that things remain unchanged. The respondent ultimately proceeded unilaterally and dismissed approximately 300 workers. The union challenged the dismissals in the Labour Court on behalf of the workers, alleging the dismissals were automatically unfair under s 187(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, and alternatively, that the dismissals were not for a fair reason and did not follow fair procedure under s 188(1). The Labour Court found in favour of the workers and ordered reinstatement. On appeal, the Labour Appeal Court reversed both findings and set aside the Labour Court's orders. The union then noted an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal before the requirement of leave to appeal was introduced by Fry's Metals, but after Chevron Engineering was decided.

• Whether leave to appeal from the Labour Appeal Court to the Supreme Court of Appeal was required where the appeal was noted after Chevron Engineering but before the leave requirement was established in Fry's Metals
• Whether a vested right to appeal existed that could not be truncated by the subsequent introduction of a leave requirement
• If leave was required, whether it should be granted in circumstances involving allegedly automatically unfair dismissals and dismissals not effected for fair reasons or in accordance with fair procedure
• Whether the dismissals constituted automatically unfair dismissals under s 187(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act
• Whether the dismissals were effected for a fair reason based on operational requirements and in accordance with fair procedure under s 188(1)

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the appeal was struck from the roll, with costs in both cases, including the costs of two counsel.

Leave to appeal from the Labour Appeal Court to the Supreme Court of Appeal is required and will only be granted where: (1) the proposed appeal has reasonable prospects of success; and (2) there are special considerations that warrant a further appeal notwithstanding prior appeal to a specialist tribunal, such as important issues of constitutional or legislative construction or important questions of principle. The mere fact that an appeal was noted after Chevron Engineering but before Fry's Metals formally introduced the leave requirement does not exempt an appellant from this requirement, as Chevron only established jurisdiction, not an unqualified right to appeal. The critical time at which leave must exist is when judgment is delivered in the appeal. Fact-bound enquiries, including whether dismissals were conditional or irreversible under s 187(1)(c), or whether dismissals were for fair reasons based on operational requirements under s 188(1), do not ordinarily constitute special considerations warranting leave to appeal to the SCA.

The court observed that the legislature has entrusted the development of doctrine and responsibility for statutory interpretation in the field of labour relations primarily to the Labour Appeal Court, and the SCA ought not to supplant it at every step. Even where a Labour Appeal Court decision involves matters of principle and doctrine that are open to debate, the SCA ought not necessarily to intervene. The court noted that while the application of law to fact in particular cases inevitably develops an evolving jurisprudence, this is not in itself a reason for SCA intervention, as most often such evolution involves matters of nuance and refinement which the Labour Appeal Court is well-placed and statutorily charged to decide. The court also indicated, obiter, that it saw no reason to disagree with the conclusions reached by the Labour Appeal Court on the merits, suggesting it would have dismissed the application on those grounds as well had it reached the merits.

This case is significant for clarifying the procedural requirements for appeals from the Labour Appeal Court to the Supreme Court of Appeal in the post-Chevron and post-Fry's Metals era. It establishes that: (1) leave to appeal is required even where an appeal was noted after Chevron but before Fry's Metals introduced the leave requirement; (2) no vested right to appeal arises merely from the existence of jurisdiction; (3) the SCA will only grant leave to appeal from the Labour Appeal Court where there are special considerations involving important issues of constitutional or legislative construction or important questions of principle, not merely because there are reasonable prospects of success; and (4) fact-bound enquiries, even those requiring nuanced consideration or involving constitutional value judgments, do not ordinarily constitute special considerations warranting further appeal. The case reinforces the role of the Labour Appeal Court as the primary specialist tribunal for developing labour law jurisprudence, with the SCA intervening only in exceptional circumstances.