This thesis focuses on the review of labour arbitration awards given under the auspices of the following bodies: the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration ("CCMA"), bargaining councils, statutory councils, accredited private agencies and private arbitration tribunals. The general grounds of review applicable to the arbitration awards of each body are set out. Against this background, the case of Carephone (Pty) Ltd v Marcus NO & Others (1998) 19 ILJ 1425 (LAC) is analysed and the principles pertaining to the justifiability test are clarified. The judicial rationale for the application of the test to CCMA arbitration proceedings and criticisms of the test are then examined. Currently the justifiability test applies in the review of CCMA proceedings only, so the judicial reasoning for the rejection of justifiability as a ground for private arbitration review is examined. Three approaches are suggested for the application of the justifiability test in private arbitration review. First it is proposed that the Arbitration Act could be interpreted to include the justifiability test under the statutory review grounds. Failing the acceptance of this approach, the second submission is that arbitration agreements could be interpreted to include an implied term that the arbitrator is under a duty to give justifiable awards. A third suggestion is that the law should be developed by attaching an ex lege term to all arbitration agreements requiring arbitrators to give justifiable awards. In the final chapter, the requirement of justifiability in awards given under the auspices of collective bargaining agents and accredited private agencies highlights the incongruity in applying the justifiability test in CCMA arbitration review and in rejecting this test in private arbitration review.

In Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Ltd ((2007) 12 BLLR 1097 (CC); (2007) 28 ILJ 2405 (CC); 2008 (2) SA 24 (CC)) the Constitutional Court made two findings of immense significance for dismissed employees: firstly, the court rejected the use of the so-called “reasonable employer” test in our law, a test which traditionally required arbitrators and courts evaluating the fairness of a dismissal for proven misconduct to treat the employer’s decision on sanction with a measure of deference; and secondly, on scrutiny of the more controversial issue before the court, to wit, the basis, if any, upon which arbitrators are obliged to make reasonable decisions, the court (in confirming that arbitrators are so obliged) held that the obligation to do so suffuses section 145 of the LRA, and that the extended review grounds legislated under PAJA do not apply. In the present article these judicial conclusions are critically analysed and evaluated, and a number of submissions are made, inter alia: it is submitted that the Constitutional Court’s rejection of the “reasonable employer” test was premised on a fundamental misinterpretation of the test; that while the court’s attempt to locate the reasonableness standard within the LRA was perhaps justifiable, the court failed to consider properly, or at all, the wording of section 145 and its history, with the consequence that the court failed to appreciate that section 145 of the LRA (save on an unduly strained interpretation) could not conceivably be construed to cater, in itself and without more, for the constitutional right to lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair administrative action; and further, that the labour landscape post-Sidumo is, to an extent, unquestionably one bathed in greater uncertainty. In conclusion, the author poses the question whether, on a review of Sidumo, the Constitutional Court should not be considered to have fallen short of fulfilling its constitutional obligations under the rule of law.

This treatise will focus on the review of labour arbitration awards provided for under the oversight of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), bargaining councils, statutory councils, accredited private agencies and approved private arbitration tribunals. The general grounds of review applicable to the arbitration awards of the different bodies are set out. Thereafter the case of Carephone (Pty) Limited v Marcus NO & others (1998) 19 ILJ 1452 (LAC) is analysed and the core principles pertaining to the justifiability test are clarified for the first time in the forum of the Labour Appeal Court. The judicial rationale for the relevance and applicability of the test to CCMA arbitration proceedings and criticisms of the test are examined. The justifiability tests are only applicable to review proceedings in CCMA matters and not available to private arbitration review matters. There are however three approaches which are being suggested for the application of the justifiability tests to private arbitration review. Firstly, it is suggested that the Arbitration Act could be interpreted to include the justifiability test under the statutory review grounds. Secondly, the arbitration agreements could be interpreted to include an implied term that the arbitrator is under a duty to give justifiable awards. Finally, it can be submitted that the law should be developed by reading into all arbitration agreements the ability to arbitrators to give justifiable awards. Since the judgment of Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Mines [2007] 12 BLLR 1097 (CC) various critical questions arose in relation to the interpretation and application for the purpose of dealing with subsequent review applications. Firstly, this research paper will seek to establish whether the courts in subsequent matters to the Sidumo judgment have interpreted reasonableness as a test or ground for review. Secondly the research paper will scrutinise case law whether the reviewing court is entitled to rely on and consider reasons other than those provided for by the commissioner in his award to determine inter alia, the reasonableness of his decision arrived at. The Constitutional Court in the Sidumo case rejected the so-called employer’s test, stating that ultimately the commissioner’s sense of fairness is what must prevail and not the employer’s view. Consequently an impartial determination whether or not a dismissal was fair is likely to promote labour peace amongst the labour force. The test arrived at by the Constitutional Court in the Sidumo case for determining whether a decision or arbitration award of a CCMA commissioner is reasonable, is a stringent test that will ensure that such awards are not easily interfered with. The question to be asked in determining whether there has been compliance with the standard is whether the decision of the commissioner is one which a reasonable decision maker could have reached. This approach will underpin the primary objectives of the Labour Relations Act which is the effective resolution of disputes. This finding will be apparent from important cases decided and discussed after the Sidumo landmark ruling.