The role of reasonableness in the review of CCMA arbitration awards in South Africa : an English law comparison

In South Africa, the Labour Courts have experienced an important and continuing controversy regarding the permissible scope of judicial review of arbitration awards of the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (“CCMA”) in terms of section 145 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“LRA”). Section 145(1) of the LRA specifically provides that arbitration awards, generally considered final and binding, can be reviewed and set aside by the Labour Court on the basis of a defect as defined in section 145(2)(a) and (b). These defects are not prescribed in an open-ended manner but limited to decisions involving allegations of misconduct by the commissioner in relation to his or her duties, a gross irregularity in the conduct of the proceedings and/or allegations that the commissioner exceeded his or her powers or that the award was improperly obtained. Unreasonableness and/or irrationality are not included within the scope of a defect as per section 145(2)(a) and (b). Initially, Carephone (Pty) Ltd v Marcus NO & others 1998 11 BLLR 1093 (LAC) found that the interpretation of section 145 was influenced by rational justifiability in accordance with the right to just administrative action as provided for in section 33, read with item 23(2) of Schedule 6, of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (‘the 1996 Constitution’). Today, leading precedent in the form of Sidumo & another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd & others 2007 12 BLLR 1097 (CC) dictates that section 145 of the LRA is suffused by reasonableness in accordance with the right to just administrative action as provided for in section 33 of the 1996 Constitution. The ultimate enquiry is whether the arbitration award is one that a reasonable decision-maker could reach as articulated in Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and others 2004 4 SA 490 (CC). However, the enquiry into the reasonableness of a decision is indistinct. As a result, the Labour Courts have struggled to apply the concept of reasonableness in a consistent manner. This thesis seeks to identify the proper role of reasonableness in the judicial review process, including identifying factors that would assist in recognising an unreasonable decision. Relevant principles of judicial review in South Africa in the general administrative law context are considered and distinguished from the process of appeal. An assessment of English case law and commentary in the field of both administrative and employment law is conducted. Finally an extensive examination of South African case law and commentary on the subject, both pre- and post Sidumo, is undertaken. The English law approach is found to provide greater clarity to the interpretation of reasonableness in South African labour law in several respects