This article examines the legal and procedural framework governing the review of arbitration awards issued by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) in South Africa. It assesses the statutory basis, practical steps, and jurisprudential developments that shape the review process in the Labour Court, highlighting the imperative of procedural compliance and the consequences of failing to meet prescribed timelines. Special attention is paid to recent judgments of the Labour Appeal Court, which underscore the judiciary's strict interpretation of the Labour Court Practice Manual and its commitment to promoting expeditious dispute resolution. 

Introduction 

Established under the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“LRA”), the CCMA serves as a cornerstone institution for the resolution of labour disputes in South Africa. Its purpose is to provide an accessible, expeditious, and cost-effective forum for dispute resolution. While arbitration awards issued by CCMA commissioners are final and binding, dissatisfied parties may challenge these awards through judicial review in the Labour Court. However, this route is strictly regulated by statutory provisions, court rules, and practice guidelines that demand rigorous procedural adherence. 

Statutory Framework for Review Applications 

Section 145 of the LRA provides the statutory basis for bringing a review application in the Labour Court. A party seeking review must do so within six weeks of the date the arbitration award is served. In cases involving alleged corruption, the time period commences from the date on which the corruption was discovered. 

Section 145(2) delineates the grounds upon which a review application may be brought. These include: 

• Misconduct by the commissioner in relation to their duties. 
• Gross irregularity in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings. 
• The commissioner exceeding their powers. 
• The award being improperly obtained. 

It is important to note that the purpose of a review is not to reargue the merits of the case or introduce new evidence, but to evaluate the legality and reasonableness of the commissioner’s conduct and decision-making process. 

Initiating the Review Application: Procedural Requirements 

The initiation of a review application entails filing a notice of motion accompanied by a founding affidavit in the Labour Court. In terms of Rule 7A of the Rules for the Conduct of Proceedings in the Labour Court, once the application has been served on the CCMA (or relevant Bargaining Council), the CCMA is required to dispatch the record of proceedings to the Registrar. 

Upon receipt, the Registrar informs the applicant in accordance with Rule 7A(5), after which the applicant has seven days to uplift the record (Practice Manual, clause 11.2.1). The applicant must then ensure that the transcribed record is filed within 60 days (clause 11.2.2). The applicant may also supplement its founding papers, if necessary, after receiving the record (Rule 7A(8)). 

Incomplete Records and the Consequences of Non-Compliance 

A frequent procedural challenge in review applications is the failure to file a complete record of proceedings. In terms of clause 11.2.3 of the Practice Manual: 

“If the applicant fails to file a record within the prescribed period, the applicant will be deemed to have withdrawn the application, unless the applicant has during that period requested the respondent’s consent for an extension of time…” 

Should consent be denied, the applicant must bring a formal application to the Judge President for an extension of time. The Labour Appeal Court has taken a strict stance on this issue, as illustrated in South African Police Services v Coerecius and Others (CA 11/2021). 

In this case, the SAPS filed an incomplete record and failed to follow the procedure outlined in clause 11.2.3. The Court unequivocally held that there can be no distinction between different parts of the record relevant to various aspects of the review application. A complete record must be filed within the 60-day period. The application was deemed to have been withdrawn due to procedural non-compliance. 

Judicial Emphasis on Procedural Discipline 

Further judicial reinforcement of the procedural strictness was evident in E Tradex (Pty) Ltd t/a Global Trade Solution v Finch and Others (CA 12/2021). The Labour Appeal Court reiterated that if the necessary papers for a review application are not filed within 12 months of launching the application, the matter is archived and regarded as dismissed (Practice Manual, clauses 11.2.7 and 16.3). Reinstatement requires a formal application with good cause, and even then, success is not guaranteed. 

These decisions reflect the judiciary’s commitment to enforcing discipline in labour litigation and its alignment with the objective of expeditious dispute resolution. 

The Role and Status of the Practice Manual 

The Practice Manual of the Labour Court is a pivotal document in review proceedings. Although it is not a legislative instrument, the Labour Appeal Court has affirmed its binding nature. In Macsteel Trading Wadeville v Van der Merwe NO & Others (2019) 40 ILJ 798 (LAC), the Court stated: 

“The underlying objective of the Practice Manual is the promotion of the statutory imperative of expeditious dispute resolution… It is binding on the parties and the Labour Court.” 

Nonetheless, the Court retains a residual discretion to interpret or depart from the Manual where justified by the circumstances. 

Practical Guidelines for Employers and Other Litigants 

From a practical standpoint, review applications should be approached with caution, planning, and legal guidance. The following principles are essential: 

• Time Sensitivity: The six-week deadline is strictly applied. Legal advice should be sought promptly. 
• Grounds for Review: Ensure that the review is based on recognized statutory grounds—procedural unfairness, misconduct, or jurisdictional overreach—not mere disagreement with the outcome. 
• Procedural Compliance: Follow Rule 7A and the Practice Manual to the letter, including uplifting and filing the complete record within 60 days. 
• Avoiding Costs and Delays: Review applications may take years and incur significant legal costs. The award remains enforceable unless stayed by order or secured appropriately. 
• Security Requirements: In cases involving reinstatement or compensation awards, prescribed security must be furnished for the review to have suspensive effect. 

Conclusion 

The Labour Court’s review jurisdiction serves as a crucial safeguard against arbitral misconduct and irregularity. However, it is not a forum for rehearing disputes or re-evaluating evidence. Instead, it is a highly regulated judicial process focused on legality, fairness, and reasonableness. 

Recent jurisprudence underscores the imperative of procedural compliance and affirms the authority of the Practice Manual. Parties—especially employers contemplating review—must act with urgency and diligence, appreciating both the complexity and the potential consequences of non-compliance. Ultimately, the review process is a powerful but demanding legal remedy, best navigated with expert guidance and rigorous preparation.

Written by Ross Hendriks, Attorney, SchoemanLaw Inc