Royal Bafokeng mine manager's dismissal upheld by Labour Court over inflated payments.
Image: AI Generated
The Labour Court in Johannesburg has dismissed an application by former mine manager who wanted to overturn his dismissal by Royal Bafokeng Platinum, ruling that both the disciplinary process and the outcome were fair.
Acting Judge H P Van Nieuwenhuizen found no basis to interfere with an earlier arbitration award issued under the auspices of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), which had upheld Monama’s dismissal.
Leka Monama, who had worked for the company for approximately 16 years as a mine manager at the Styldrift Mine, sought to have the arbitration ruling reviewed and set aside. He argued that his dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair and requested reinstatement or compensation. However, the court rejected his claims, siding with the employer.
Monama was dismissed by Royal Bafokeng Platinum after the company found him guilty of several serious misconduct charges linked to how mining contracts were handled and his conduct as a senior manager.
At the core of his dismissal was a conflict of interest. As a mine manager involved in awarding contracts, Monama was expected to act in the best interests of the company. However, evidence showed that two contractors—Bambatha Engineering and Poogi Consultants—had overlapping business links through a common director. The company found that Monama was aware of this relationship but failed to disclose it or take steps to address it, which breached his duty of good faith.
He was also found guilty of gross dishonesty. This was based on financial records, including a spreadsheet that appeared to link him to irregular payments. While the evidence was circumstantial, it suggested he may have benefited improperly from the contractor arrangements, which the employer viewed as a serious breach of trust.
Another key issue was his role in approving inflated contractor payments. Monama authorised invoices at a rate considered excessively high—around R350 per ton—which caused financial prejudice to the company. The fact that these rates were later reduced reinforced the view that the earlier approvals were unreasonable.
In addition, Monama was found to have breached the terms of his suspension. While suspended, he communicated with a former colleague about work-related matters, which was prohibited under his suspension conditions.
After initially preparing for a formal disciplinary hearing, the company changed course, opting instead to invite written representations from Monama after accusing him of violating his suspension conditions. He was ultimately dismissed in August 2019 following this process.
The dispute was referred to the CCMA, where the arbitrator found Monama guilty of several charges, including conflict of interest, dishonesty, and approving inflated payments, and concluded that his dismissal was fair. Although he was cleared of some allegations, the arbitrator held that the proven misconduct justified termination.
In his review application, Monama argued that the arbitrator failed to properly assess the evidence, relied on hearsay, and reached conclusions that were not supported by the facts. He also challenged the fairness of the disciplinary procedure, arguing that he had been denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and that the process deviated from company policy.
The Labour Court, however, reaffirmed the legal standard for reviewing arbitration awards, emphasising that it is not the role of the court to re-hear the case but to determine whether the arbitrator’s decision was one that a reasonable decision-maker could reach.
Applying this test, the court found that the arbitrator had properly considered the evidence and the issues in dispute. It held that the findings on conflict of interest were justified, noting that Monama, as a senior manager, had a duty to act in good faith and avoid situations where his interests could conflict with those of his employer.
On the issue of alleged dishonesty, the court accepted that the arbitrator was entitled to rely on circumstantial evidence, including financial records suggesting irregular payments linked to Monama. It also rejected his complaint about hearsay evidence, noting that no objection had been raised during the arbitration proceedings.
Regarding the approval of inflated contractor rates, the court found that the arbitrator’s conclusion was reasonable in light of evidence that the rates were excessive and later reduced. Similarly, the finding that Monama breached his suspension conditions was supported by objective evidence.
The court also dismissed claims of procedural unfairness. It held that the employer was entitled to deviate from its disciplinary procedures, provided the process remained fair. In this case, the opportunity given to Monama to make written representations was considered sufficient, and the absence of an oral hearing or cross-examination did not render the process unfair.
Judge Van Nieuwenhuizen further noted that Monama had not demonstrated how the alleged procedural shortcomings affected the outcome of the case.
In conclusion, the court found that the arbitration award was reasonable and that there were no grounds to set it aside. The application for review was dismissed.
The court made no order as to costs, citing fairness and the principle that employees should not be discouraged from approaching the court to challenge decisions affecting their livelihoods.
sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za
IOL News