Fairness in labour dispute resolution relies not only on the correct application of the law, but also on the quality and clarity of the reasons given by decision-makers. Arbitration remains a pivotal mechanism for resolving workplace disputes under the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA), and commissioners are entrusted with delivering swift, accessible, and fair outcomes. However, when arbitration awards lack meaningful reasoning, the very purpose of the process is undermined. A recent judgment of the Labour Court has reinforced the fundamental principle that commissioners must engage with the issues before them and provide intelligible reasons that demonstrate how the decision was reached.

The Duty to Provide Reasons under the LRA

Section 138 of the LRA contains general provisions for arbitration proceedings. Section 138(7) specifically requires commissioners to issue an award within 14 days, accompanied by brief reasons for the decision. Although the Act emphasises informality and expedition, this does not relieve arbitrators of the responsibility to:

Identify and determine all material issues placed before them;
Engage meaningfully with the evidence and arguments presented;
Analyse credibility, probabilities, and the legal standards applicable to the dispute;
Explain why one version was accepted over another; and
Provide reasoning that is not merely formulaic or conclusory.

The Labour Court has repeatedly emphasised that reasons are not a luxury, but rather an essential part of ensuring that the arbitration process is fair, reviewable, and trustworthy. Failure to provide proper reasons may render an award susceptible to review under section 145 of the LRA.

Why Adequate Reasons Matter

Arbitration is intended to offer a quicker, less formal alternative to court litigation. This flexibility, however, does not dilute the obligation to deliver decisions that demonstrate rationality and fairness. When parties refer a dismissal or unfair labour practice dispute to arbitration, they expect an impartial determination based on a proper assessment of the facts and the law. Where complex factual disputes arise, such as allegations of discrimination, bullying, or procedural unfairness, the need for detailed reasoning becomes even more critical. A commissioner who merely recites evidence or conclusions without engaging with the real issues prevents the parties from understanding the basis of the outcome and may violate the constitutional right to fair administrative action.

The courts have consistently held that the absence of adequate reasoning:

Impedes effective review,
Deprives parties of a fair hearing,
Undermines the integrity of the statutory dispute-resolution framework, and
Constitutes a gross irregularity capable of setting aside the award.

The recent decision in Ndlovu v PHSDSBC and Others (C536/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 539 (20 November 2025) offers a clear illustration of these principles in action.

Case Study

In Ndlovu v PHSDSBC and Others (C536/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 539 (20 November 2025), the applicant, who previously headed the Nephrology Unit at Groote Schuur Hospital, was dismissed by the Western Cape Department of Health after being found guilty of seven charges of serious misconduct, four of which related to alleged unfair discrimination against colleagues. He referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the Public Health and Social Development Sectoral Bargaining Council (PHSDSBC).

The pre-arbitration minute set out clear issues for determination, including whether the statements attributed to him were made, whether they amounted to discrimination, bullying, or victimisation, and whether the disciplinary chairperson acted fairly and without bias. Despite this, the arbitrator upheld the fairness of the dismissal without engaging meaningfully with these issues.

The Labour Court found that:

The commissioner failed to analyse the extensive factual disputes;
There was no assessment of credibility, probabilities, or the legal test for discrimination;
The award merely assumed discriminatory conduct without substantiating it;
Procedural fairness complaints, including allegations of bias, were ignored; and
The award lacked any systematic or rational reasoning explaining why one version was accepted over the other.

This failure to grapple with the evidence and the law deprived the parties of a fair hearing and constituted a gross irregularity. The Court held that the award was a nullity and set it aside, remitting the matter for a rehearing de novo before a different commissioner. The judgment underscores that while reasons under section 138(7) may be “brief”, they cannot be superficial or conclusory. They must reflect an actual engagement with the dispute

Conclusion

The Ndlovu judgment underscores that the legitimacy of arbitration depends heavily on the quality of the reasons provided. While commissioners are not expected to write lengthy judgments, they must offer clear, intelligible explanations that show genuine engagement with the issues and evidence. When an award lacks proper reasoning, it undermines fairness and renders the process vulnerable to review. By reaffirming these principles, the Labour Court emphasises the essential role of reasoned decision-making in maintaining trust and accountability within South Africa’s labour dispute-resolution system.