16 February 2026 – ELRC166-25/26KZN

IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL
HELD AT VIRTUALLY

Case No. ELRC 166-25/26 KZN

In the matter between

PSA obo NOJIYEZA & OTHERS Applicants

and

KZN COASTAL TVET COLLEGE First Respondent

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION & TRAINING Second Respondent

PANELIST: YOLISA NDZUTA

LAST HEARD: 12 January 2026

DATE of AWARD: 16 February 2026

SUMMARY: Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 – Section 186(2)(b) – unfair labour practice includes the unfair suspension of an employee or any other unfair disciplinary action short of dismissal
SUMMARY: whether the sanction of suspension without pay constituted unfair labour practice and a fair outcome following the disciplinary hearing

ARBITRATION AWARD

PARTICULARS OF PROCEEDINGS

The matter was heard on several days. The proceedings commenced on the 1st of July 2025 and after several set down days was concluded on the 12th of January 2026.
The Applicant was represented by Mr Martin Mbambo from PSA whilst the Respondent was represented by Mr Tebogo Lesimola.
The parties filed substantial bundles of evidence and written submissions too, these will be further addressed later in the award.

THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE

I am to determine whether the Respondent had committed an act that constitutes an unfair labour practice as alleged by the Applicants per same Applicants’ suspension without pay as an outcome of the Applicant’s disciplinary proceedings.

BACKGROUND

In these proceedings the Applicant’s referred a dispute pertaining to the alleged unfair labour practice relating to the disciplinary proceedings against them and the sanction issued and impose following the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
The Applicants are employees of the Respondent and at the time of referring the dispute occupied several vacancies as the First Respondent.
The Applicants’ dispute specifically pertains the timeframes when the disciplinary proceedings were convened and the subsequent sanction (suspension without pay for one (1) month) that was imposed. The Applicant raises a challenge pertaining the latter by contending that it constitutes unfair labour practice.

SURVEY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT

Seeing that the nature of the dispute herein is one of an alleged unfair labour practice, the Applicant bears the onus to prove that same unfair labour practice exists in their dispute in terms of section 186(2) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995. On account of the latter, the Applicant shall lead its case first then the Respondent (employer) shall follow in opposition.
The Applicant called five witnesses and filed a bundle enclosing several documents. There was no dispute raised against the contents of the bundle thus same was adopted on the basis that the documents are what they purport to be. The summary of the aforementioned witnesses is enclosed hereinbelow.
The first Applicant to testify was Mr Thembinkosi Ndebele, whose evidence can be summarized as follows:

10.1 He is a lecturer at the First Respondent.

10.2 On the 30th of August 2022, he was served with a notice to attend a disciplinary hearing relating to several charges.

10.3 Following the hearing, the chairperson issued an outcome wherein he was found not guilty of two charges and was found guilty of one charge. He was dissatisfied with the outcome and filed an appeal. The outcome of the appeal was a suspension without pay and a final written warning.

10.4 Dissatisfied with the appeal, he referred the present dispute before this council seeking that the sanction imposed be set aside and that he be reimbursed that remuneration lost.

10.5 He testified that the entire disciplinary action stemmed from him being erroneously accused of being part of a protest action. Also, of interesting consideration is that one witness, Ms Phohlo, only testified much later after which she had actually comprised a statement. Also more importantly, the appeal was completed much later (almost a year after it was filed). The delay is raised as a procedural issue.

10.6 He testified that his inclusion in any gathering or protest that occurred was denied and the employer committed a gross error including him therein.

The above witness was subject to cross-examination by the Respondents and the following was ascertained therefrom:

11.1 This Applicant was present on campus on the 8th of March 2021 (the day of the alleged protest action) to execute his duties as a lecturer.

11.2 This Applicant did witness the protest action however doubts being part of same. He also denied all references to his involvement therein.

11.3 This Applicant also emphasised that another issue was the absence of Mr Magwaza’s testimony from the record.

11.4 This Applicant testified that he and the other Applicants waited for approximately 20 months for the appeal which they consider as unreasonably long and prejudicial.

The Applicant also called one Mr Maxwell Nojiyeza who testified as follows:

12.1 He is an employee of the first Respondent;

12.2 This Applicant testified that he too was charged similar to the other Applicants and too received the same sanction although the finding of the chairperson differed from that communicated by the employer;

12.3 He testified that he too was seeking that the outcome and sanction be set aside;

12.4 He testified and confirmed having filed an appeal and ultimately part of the referral to the ELRC;

12.5 He testified that within the myriads of reasons for his dissatisfaction with the disciplinary action, the exclusion of Mr Magwaza from same proceedings remain one of the most important;

12.6 He testified that on the day of the incident (alleged protest), he was called into a meeting by other staff as such when he arrived to the meeting that was chaired by a colleague, soon thereafter some colleagues decided to take action on the complaint which resulted in the protest.

The above witness was subject to cross-examination by the Respondents and the following was ascertained therefrom:

13.1 He knows Mr Sydney Mthethwa;

13.2 He confirmed that when Mr Mthethwa was removed from his class (midst lecture) he (Mr Nojiyeza) was part of the colleagues who called Mr Mthethwa.

13.3 He denied being part of the protest and those colleagues who removed Ms Phohlo from her office.

13.4 He confirmed that pending the disciplinary hearing and during the appeal, he was remunerated and when asked of the prejudice suffered, he maintained that he was prejudiced.

13.5 When asked whether it would have made a difference if Mr Magwaza had testified, he testified that he couldn’t confirm whether there would have been a difference.

The Applicant also called one Mr. Petros Gumede as a witness, the summary of his evidence is enclosed hereinunder:

14.1 He is an employee of the Respondents.

14.2 He confirmed having formed part of the group of Applicants who were disciplined following the incident of 8 March 2021.

14.3 He testified that following the disciplinary hearing, he was dissatisfied with the outcome and filed an appeal whereinafter he referred the dispute before this honourable council.

14.4 He also testified that he too had an issue with how long it took before the appeal was resolved and an outcome thereof was communicated. His health was affected by the stress related to the delay.

14.5 He also testified that on the day of the incident he was present on campus.

14.6 He also testified that while he was lecturing on the day of the incident, colleagues disrupted him and called him into an emergency staff meeting. Upon arriving at the latter meeting, he learned that what was being discussed was the admission of one Khetelo Goba Who had been earlier excluded. Later, Mr Magwaza was called in to address the complaint however owing to his refusal the colleagues then went to his (Mr Magwaza) office.

The above witness was subject to cross-examination by the Respondents, and the following was ascertained therefrom:

15.1 Although he was present at the emergency staff meeting wherefrom colleagues thereafter went on to take action that resulted in the incident, he was not part of the group that undertook action that resulted in the incident.

15.2 When it was put to him that Ms Phohlo, Mr Mthethwa and Mr Magwaza will testify to him forming part of the group that was at the forefront of the incident, he challenged that testimony.

15.3 When asked about his procedural challenge to the appeal, he testified that the delay was prolonged and prejudicial in that it took longer than the 30 days it ought to.

15.4 When asked how he was adversely affected by the appeal, he testified that his health was affected by the stress related to the delay.

The other Applicants (save for Mr Mabele) were also called to testify as witness and they too testified to the same facts of the other Applicants insofar as their presence and their inclusion insofar as the emergency staff meeting.
The Respondent called three (3) witnesses, namely Ms Nomusa Phohlo, Ms Sibusiso Magwaza, Ms Sydney Mthethwa. The Respondent also filed a bundle enclosing several documents. Considering the condition adopted in lieu of the Applicant’s bundle the same basis was adopted regarding the bundle of the Respondent. The summary of the aforementioned witnesses is enclosed hereinbelow.
Mrs Khumalo (formerly Ms Phohlo) testified as follows:

18.1 She was the Acting HOD for Agriculture at the first Respondent at the time incident;

18.2 On the day of the incident, the first Respondent was concluding late registration of students. While she was in her office, she saw lecturers and staff protesting. She testified that amidst the protest she witnesses Mr Magwaza exiting (driving out of) the campus while protesters were his vehicle.

18.3 She testified that after Mr Magwaza had exited the campus, the protesters then made their way towards Mr Mthethwa’s (the Acting HOD- Fundamental Studies) office to remove him from the campus premisses thereafter the same protesters came to her office to remove her from the premises.

18.4 She testified that as the protesters approached her, they were singing songs and were calling her a spy. When she realised that the protesters were approaching her office, she ran to Mrs Marshal’s (the HOD- Engineering) office and locked herself there to avoid the protesters because she was feeling afraid.

18.5 She testified that while she was locked in Mrs Marshall’s office, Mr Mndebele was speaking to Mrs Marshall (through the door) indicating that they would not hurt her (Ms Phohlo) all they wanted her to leave the campus. She (Ms Phohlo) eventually exited Mrs Marshall’s office, the protesters escorted her out of the campus.

18.6 She testified that she was afraid for her life and feared that the protester’s would harm her.

18.7 She testified that the whole experience was humiliating and it harmed her dignity more especially because it was in view of the students.

18.8 Following the incident, she, Mr Mthethwa & Mr Magwaza were accommodated at an alternative place to execute their duties as such her interactions with students (during her absence from work) was per WhatsApp messenger until her return to campus.

18.9 She testified that the protest by the lectures (including the Applicants) was a surprise in that they did expect it nor was it legal, to her understanding there were no issues from the lectures never less issues that warranted the incident of 8 March 2021.

The latter witness was subjected to cross examination, and the following can be procured therefrom:

19.1 At the disciplinary hearing, the witness indicated that the reason for the protest per rumours was that it related to the registration of Mr Khetelo Goba whereas during examination in chief she claimed not to know of the reason for the protest.

19.2 This witness was unaware of a formal complaint or issue raised regarding the registration of Mr Khetelo Goba, that ought to have been raised with Mr Magwaza. When it was put to her that on the 4th of March 2021 the latter (registration of Mr Khetelo Goba) was discussed. The latter preceded the incident of 8 March 2021.

19.3 When it was put to this witness was faced disciplinary charges for misconduct relating to registration of Mr Khetelo Goba, she denied this.

19.4 It was put to the witness that her statement presented at the disciplinary hearing and issues relating thereto, she testified that regardless of the alleged issues raised, she stood by her statement, and she had a strong recollection of the events given how it affected her. When her recollection was challenged insofar as the detail remembered, she stated that the important aspects she remembered.

19.5 When the witness was asked whether it was fair for the employer to delay the disciplinary proceedings, the witness responded that she was an employee of the employer therefore cannot advise as to the fairness.

19.6 When it was put to the witness that her credibility was challenged owing to different versions between her statement, the reflection of her contribution by the disciplinary hearing chairperson and her current testimony, the witness did not respond.

19.7 When the witness’s testimony regarding being fearful of her life was challenged, the witness emphasised that she was afraid considering the tempo of the protest and how the lecturers conducted themselves initially when removing the other colleagues.

19.8 When questioned of her recollection regarding those lectures who were involved in her removal and her identification of the Applicant, the witness maintained the specific Applicants she testified she saw.

The Respondents also called Mr Sibusiso Magwaza as a witness, the summary of his evidence is herein below.

20.1 He was the campus manager of Umlazi V campus for the first Respondent at the time with duties that include amongst others ensuring that academic activity progresses uninterrupted, validating admissions and enrollments, managing staff (including lecturers) and accounting to the second Respondent.

20.2 He testified that the incident occurred when Mr Ngcobo barged into his office demanding that he leave his office and when he refused to accede to Mr Ngcobo’s demand, a group of other lecturers entered his office while singing protest songs. The others referred in the latter included Mr Gumede.

20.3 After an exchange with the protesting group of lecturers, he decided to exit his office and Mr Gwala held the door for him to exit. He was escorted to his vehicle whereinafter he exited the campus. His exit occurred in full view of the students.

20.4 He testified that during the protest he was confused because he was unaware what the protest was about and while he was being escorted, he was afraid although Mr Ngcobo was also addressing the group requesting that I not be hurt.

20.5 He also testified that the entire experience was humiliating.

20.6 He testified that while being escorted to his vehicle, he heard protesters saying they will also remove Ms Phohlo & Mr Mthethwa.

20.7 He testified that the protest was a surprise because he and the Applicants had been colleagues for years and understood that issues would be reported and addressed in the correct process. He also emphasized that he had not received an apology from the Applicants regarding the incident.

20.8 He testified that after the incident, he had to work offsite together with his PA and the other colleagues who had been forcefully removed for about two (2) years. Eventually after the incident he was transferred to another vacancy. He emphasized that his physical absence from campus did affect the operations of the first Respondent.

21 The latter witness was subjected to cross examination, and the following can be procured therefrom:

21.1 When it was put to him that his testimony was influenced by Mr Mthethwa & Ms Phohlo, he refuted that and emphasized that the last time he spoke to Mr Mthethwa was 3 years prior to the arbitration. He also stated that he was not present when Ms Phohlo testified.

21.2 When asked about the similarities between his testimony and those of Mr Mthethwa and Ms Phohlo, he testified that he has his own account.

21.3 When it was put to him that he, Mr Mthethwa and Ms Phohlo must have discussed the incident during their two (2) years working offsite, he refuted that.

21.4 When it was put to him that the Applicants were disciplined for humiliating him, he responded that the Applicants’ disciplinary proceeding were initiated due to a breach of the code of conduct.

21.5 He testified that he attended the hearing and testified as to his version which ought to be recorded as such by the chairperson of the hearing. He could not testify as to the charges of the disciplinary hearing.

21.6 When it was put to him that Mr Mkhize was the first person to call him from his office and to an emergency meeting, he responded advising that it would be impossible because Mr Mkhize was absent on the day of the incident.

21.7 He testified that to date he is unaware of the reason for the protest of being chased away. When it was put to him that it related to the admission of Khetelo Goba, he testified that would be the Applicant’s version.

21.8 There was video footage of the incident which was not admitted into evidence.

21.9 After the incident and pending the disciplinary proceedings, an investigation was conducted and Mr Magwaza was also interviewed by the investigator (Mr Chamane).

21.10 When it was put to him that the Applicants dispute being part of the protest of the incident, he testified that he saw each of the Applicants at some stage during the incident whether it be them invading his office or chasing him out of the campus while singing protest songs.

21.11 When it was put to him that as an accounting officer, he failed to take prompt action in initiating the disciplinary proceedings, he disputed and stated that his role is to refer disciplinary action then HR would act on the referral. Any unfairness referred to by the Applicants is for labour relations officer to address or to be taken up with HR.

22 The Respondent also called Mr Sydney Mthethwa and a summary of this witness’s testimony is herein below:

22.1 He testified that he was the Acting HOD- Fundamental and was the Chief Invigilator for exams at the first Respondent.

22.2 He testified that he was not provided any notice of the protest.

22.3 He also testified that on the day of the incident, he was chased out of the campus by the Applicant and other lecturers who formed a protesting group. He felt his dignity degraded and vilified by the lecturers and Applicants.

22.4 He testified that at the time as everything was happening, he did habour fear given the tone of the protesting colleagues.

22.5. He testified that at the time remembers seeing the Applicants more specifically Mr Ngcobo who told him to leave.

22.6 He testified he was unaware of the reason for the protest as a result of the incident and protest, he could not execute his duties on the day including invigilating an exam that was ongoing at the time.

23 The above witness was subjected to cross examination; the following was procured therefrom:

23.1 At the time of the incident he was part of management however he did not influence the outcome of the disciplinary hearing.

23.2 He maintained that Mr Ngcobo was the first person to enter his office regardless of commotion occurring at the time of the protest.

23.3 He was agitated during the cross-examination and at times did not respond to questions save to state that he disputes versions. At times would respond stating “that is your version” to some assertions.

23.4 When asked whether any other lecturers save for the Applicants were issued disciplinary charges for the incident, this witness responded stating that he is unaware of such.

24.5 When challenge about his account of Mr Ngcobo and Mr Gumede during the incident, he maintained his testimony of their presence and respective roles during the incident.

24.6 When asked about Mr Mkhize calling him to attend an urgent emergency staff meeting, he disputed that as he was invigilating an exam before the incident.

24.7 When it was put to him that the urgent emergency staff meeting pertained to the registration of Khetelo Goba.

24.8. When the various Applicants’ versions were put to this witness, he maintained that he saw the Applicants and although he could not dispute their version.

25 At the conclusion of the witness testimony, the parties were directed to file submissions in support of their respective arguments, same submissions were filed with the employee’s closing submissions being filed on 26 January 2026. I shall hereinunder place an analysis of testimony and shall also reflect on the aforementioned submissions.

ANALYSIS OF THE SUBMISSIONS

26 As stated above, the parties filed written submissions in support of their respective cases. The Applicant submission can be summarized as follows:

26.1 The Applicant referred an unfair labour practice as per section 186 (2)(b) of the LRA in relation to the suspension and subsequent sanction.

26.2 The Applicants argue that the employer committed an act of unfair labour practice in that both one-month’s suspension without pay imposed as a disciplinary sanction was excessive. The Applicants also challenge the institution of the disciplinary proceedings and raised the timelapse relating to institution of the disciplinary proceedings and the conclusion of appeal of the disciplinary proceedings as a procedural error. The aforementioned time lapse is argued as a delay by the Applicants.

26.3 In their heads of argument, save for challenging the credibility of the Respondents’ witnesses, the Applicants argue that the aforementioned delay is a breach of the PSCBC Resolution 1 of 2003 more specifically clause 2.2 of paragraph 2 which refers to discipline having to be applied in a prompt, fair and consistent and progressive manner. The Applicants argue that the Respondent failed provide justification for the delay and did not even call the investigator to assist in explaining the delay.

26.4 Secondly the Applicants argue that the delay in resolving their appeal constituted a breach of clause 8.8 of PSCBC resolution 1 of 2003. which states that appeals must be finalized within 30 days.

26.5 The Applicant argued that central to their dispute is the Respondent failure to complying with the rules of discipline more than the prejudice suffered by the Applicants. It was argued that when the Respondent breaks the rules in the process of disciplining the Applicant, the Respondent loses the moral ground to discipline and that renders the whole process of discipline unfair.

26.6 The third procedural issue relates to the lack of consistency on the part of the Respondent when enforcing discipline. The Applicants contended that the sanction imposed on them was not fair because there were other employees that had committed a similar offense but they were given a lesser

27 The Respondent’s submissions can be summarized as follows:

27.1 The Applicants committed acts of misconduct and were disciplined for same.

27.2 It was argued that the Applicants participated in an unlawful protest/ strike in breach of section 77 of the Labour Relations Act.

27.3 It was argued that the Applicants and other protesting staff failed to notify the first Respondent of their strike or protest as such disrupted the operations of their employer. The latter disruptions were described as “violent action”. It was emphasised that a protected protest done in line with section 77 of the Labour Relations Act, is not permitted to be violent and disrupt the employer’s business activities. The law is clear that a protected protest action should not include any acts of intimidation and interference with the clients of the business. It was then argued that the conduct of the Applicants and their protesting group went on to transgress the latter.

27.4 It was argued that in terms of PSCBC Resolution 1 of 2003 which is the Disciplinary Code and Procedure, the participation in an unprocedural and unlawful protest action is an act of misconduct thus the conduct of the Applicants is further aggravated by the fact that they still do not show any remorse, and the employer’s three witnesses have all stated that they have not received any apology from the perpetrators. The employer then referred to the doctrine of common purpose.

27.5 In response to the argument of a delay in proceedings, the employer argued Public Investment Corporation v More and Others wherein the Labour Court made it crystal clear that the disciplinary hearing are not subject to prescription, and the employer cannot lose the right to discipline employees on account of time. Also Stokwe v MEC: Eastern Cape and the argument was that unreasonable delay in the conducting of disciplinary inquiry needs to be determined case by case. The Respondents argued that the court (in Stokwe v MEC: Eastern Cape) held that the delay has to be unreasonable, the explanation for the delay must be considered, it must be considered whether the employee has taken steps in the course of the process to assert his or her right to a speedy process , did the delay cause material prejudice to the employee and the nature of the alleged offence must be considered. The Respondents emphasised that the a collective misconduct involving an undefined number of employees and it was therefore complex to investigate. The latter investigation was conducted by the national office Labour Relations personnel and the processes undertaken to ultimately schedule the hearings required the application of bureaucracy as part of compliance.

27.6 It was emphasised that the Applicants did not suffer any prejudice the matter.

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE SUBMISSIONS

28 A dispute wherein an Applicant alleges unfair labour practice departs from section 186 (2)(b) of the LRA once same form of unfair labour practice alleged is identified.

29 It is common cause that the Applicants not only challenges the sanction resultant from the disciplinary proceedings, they also challenges disciplinary proceedings initiated and including the appeal. I must state that the Applicants seek the setting aside of the sanction.

30 The above provision confirms that I enjoy jurisdiction to consider the application for consolidation, I shall herein consider the application in lieu of the applicable case law.

31 I must emphasised that most of the viva voce evidence presented indicated how divergent the parties are from each other as such in determining the matter on a balance of probabilities, I considered the evidence per section 3 (4) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1998. More importantly I must place that although most of the witnesses maintained their versions, one Mr Sydeny Mthethwa exhibited agitation and at times was evasive in his responses.

32 At the epicentre of this dispute lies a debate of the Applicants’ involvement in the protest. Correspondingly we cannot avoid the burden carried by the Applicants in such matter. I must reiterate that much of the viva voce evidence presented was not substantiated sufficiently with documentary evidence save for what one would be referred to.

33 The Applicant argued that the Respondent in executing a suspension as a disciplinary sanction an act of unfair labour practice then argued that the delay in the institution of the disciplinary proceedings constituted a breach that in itself an act of unfair labour practice.

34 The Applicants’ submissions argued and claimed that there was non-compliance by the Respondent with PSCBC resolution 1 of 2003 however fails to explain the non-compliance in that was same non-compliance was merely not following the directive or regulation in the statute or whether same non-compliance was a direct and deliberate transgression. The Applicants’ arguments pertaining to interpretation of the statue fails because full consideration of the dictum and judgement of Stokwe v MEC Department of Education, Eastern Cape [2018] ZACC 3. the court considered the factors in Morenyane to determine if the delay was unreasonable and same court directs that these factors are holistically considered. If we are to consider the latter together with the principles of substantial compliance decision in Weenen Transitional Local Council v Van Dyk which considered the application and interpretation of delegated legislation. The court places that where there is an allegation of non-compliance with legislation by an authoritative party, said non-compliance must be clearly established (my interpretation). Further to the above it was not challenged that the submissions of the protest being disruptive to the operations of the first Respondent and other consequent affects thereof not to mention that the date between the date of protest and the date of the disciplinary proceedings there was an investigation and other internal proceedings undertaken by the employer.

35 It is evident that the effect of the non-compliance has not been clearly established by the Applicants more so whether same non-compliance was an intentional transgression or a justifiable conduct. It is must be noted that the Applicants carry the onus to prove in such matters. Although the Applicant may have attempted to argue this in their submission, it was not pleaded in evidence thus cannot be relied on in argument.

36 Having regard to the above, I now turn to the submissions relating to the suspension imposed as a sanction and whether same cannot be considered as an unfair labour practice.

37 In Koka v Director-General: Provincial Admin North West Government (1997) BLLR 874 (LC) the honourable court confirmed that an employee can be suspended without pay only in circumstances where dismissal would be justified, were it not for mitigating factors. If suspension is imposed as a disciplinary sanction, the ordinary requirements of substantive and procedural fairness should apply since suspension is usually imposed as an alternative to dismissal.

38 The Applicant argued and challenged the implementation of a punitive suspension as an unfair labour practice. It is however work noting that punitive suspension is imposed as a sanction alternative to dismissal (per the aforementioned caselaw). The latter therefore invites one to consider the misconduct committed and whether (in terms of the employer’s disciplinary code) constitutes a dismissible offence. I wish to emphasise that the objective of the latter is to consider the misconduct vis a vis the sanction and not to review the conduct of the disciplinary hearing chair or to examine the appeal.

39 The Applicants faced various charges and ultimately were found guilty of certain charges. The most common charge being that of participating in an unlawful protest and the removal of officials from the premises of the first Respondent.

40 The Applicants refuted their involvement while they challenged the latter charge however accepted to being part of the emergency staff meeting which preceded the protest and removal.

41 The Applicants also made submissions (per their representative) that their identification in the protest cannot be established without a doubt considering the commotion that may have confused the witnesses of the Respondent.

42 An assessment of the latter divergent views, I find the Respondent’s version of the Applicants’ involvement in the protest more probative on a balance of probabilities. The conclusion is on the understanding that it was the emergency staff meeting that turned into a protest (upon considering the evidence of the Applicants’ witnesses) that notwithstanding the effect of the emergency meeting on the operations of the first Respondents.

43 It was argued by the Respondents that the unlawful protest and any violent or disruptive conduct is unacceptable and in terms the disciplinary code constitutes serious misconduct. It therefore is concludable that dismissal was a possible sanction of the aforementioned charge.

44 Departing from the latter premise, we consider the reason for the Applicant’s sanction vis a vis the conduct committed it stands that the sanction was appropriate and justifiable.

45 In the premise of the above I make the following award.

AWARD

46 The Applicants have not adduced their duty to prove that an unfair labour practice was committed by the Respondents.

47 The Applicants are not entitled to the relief sought.