AMCU's challenge against SA Steelworks dismissals rejected by Labour Court
Some 15 employees challenged a ruling that their dismissal by SA Steelworks and lost.
Image: Freepik
The Labour Court in Cape Town has refused to overturn a decision by a commissioner at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration.
Some 15 employees challenged a ruling that their dismissal by SA Steelworks, a division of SA Metal, was procedurally fair.
The employees, known as the Blue team, were dismissed in January 2019 after refusing to work a new shift system introduced by the company in the Melt Shop.
This new unit operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Members of the Blue Team faced disciplinary charges including unauthorised absence, breach of company policy, and gross insubordination.
SA Steelworks argued the shift changes were necessary for operational reasons.
The company had consulted employees over several months and introduced a new system aimed at reducing injuries and absenteeism, while giving staff more rest between shifts.
Until 2019, the Melt Shop operated on a six-day cycle with a mix of day and night shifts, followed by two days off.
The new roster involved four-day shifts, two days off, four-night shifts, and two days off.
In arbitration proceedings before Gail McEwan under the Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council, the commissioner found the dismissals both procedurally and substantively fair.
McEwan noted that the employees had no contractual right to retain their previous shifts and that the introduction of the new shift system did not alter the material terms and conditions of employment.
The commissioner concluded that the staff’s deliberate refusal to comply with the lawful instructions to work the new roster amounted to gross insubordination.
The commissioner found that while it would have been a “prudent courtesy” to spend time in consultation, no agreement with the employees was legally required to implement the changes.
McEwan further observed that the change in shifts had already produced operational benefits, including fewer injuries and lower absenteeism, and that the employees had been given multiple opportunities to raise concerns.
AMCU argued that the arbitrator had failed to properly consider factors such as the employees’ length of service, whether dismissal was a proportionate sanction, and whether the employees genuinely believed the new shifts were unlawful.
The Labour Court rejected these arguments, emphasising that the arbitrator’s findings were grounded in the evidence.
The court noted that the employees returned to work on 9 January 2019 intending to follow the old roster.
Then they refused to work on 11 and 12 January without notifying the employer, in breach of company policy.
In the ruling, the judge said the arbitrator had correctly assessed that these actions constituted gross insubordination and that dismissal was a fair and appropriate sanction.
“The confrontational and adversarial approach of the employees relates to the established disruptive conduct prior to their dismissal,” said the ruling.
The court further held that it was not for the Labour Court to substitute its own view for that of the arbitrator, but to determine whether the arbitration award was reasonable and supported by evidence.
On this basis, the court confirmed the award, ruling that the dismissals were fair.
IOL Business