CSAAWU - CCMA arbitration proceedings - Labour Appeal Court - Labour Court - Cape Town - Dismissal - Racist utterances - Namaqua Wines
In this matter, SERI represents Mr. Vuyani Qomoyi, who was dismissed from his place of employment at Namaqua Wines where he was employed as a general worker since August 2019. In his time at Namaqua Wines, Mr. Qomoyi also served as shop steward for the Commercial Stevedoring Agricultural and Allied Workers Union (CSAAWU), representing the interests of fellow workers amongst other his duties.
Mr. Qomoyi's dismissal was the result of an incident in August 2021 where he was called by his supervisor Mr. Sybrandt Meyer (a bottling manager at Namaqua Wines) to the Human Resources office to serve as a witness to the dismissal of a fellow employee—a reason that Mr. Meyer refused to disclose despite Mr. Qomoyi inquiring. Upon witnessing Mr. Meyer dismiss a fellow employee, Mr. Qomoyi protested the dismissal and questioned the procedure followed and in a heated exchange, Mr. Qomoyi accused Mr. Meyer of being a 'white racist' who dismisses who fires black people without a representative present. Mr. Qomoyi was subsequently charged with “displaying racist behaviour” and was dismissed on 15 October 2021 following a disciplinary hearing.
CSAAWU challenged the dismissal before the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) on behalf of Mr. Qomoyi, however, they were unsuccessful. The CCMA upheld the dismissal as procedurally and substantively fair. In May 2022, CSAAWU then launched a review application in the Labour Court with SERI’s legal representation in terms of section 145 of the Labour Relations Act, which allows a party to apply to the Labour Court to review and set aside an arbitration award of the CCMA or the bargaining council on grounds such as commissioner misconduct, gross irregularity, or acting outside their powers. The Labour Court heard in February 2024. SERI submitted that the CCMA and the Commissioner who presided over the arbitration failed to apply the correct test for establishing whether Mr. Qomoyi's utterances were racist, which includes the broader context at Namaqua Wines. Instead, the CCMA found that the statement was inherently racist and thereby constituted dismissible conduct.
The Labour Court dismissed the review application with costs and upheld Mr. Qomoyi's dismissal. The Court found that the CCMA’s arbitration was not reviewable and that Mr. Qomoyi’s conduct was deserving of dismissal, and that the outcome of the arbitration was reasonable. The Court held that the CCMA correctly found that there was a rule in place at the farm that racism would not be tolerated, and that it was a serious offence worthy of dismissal, even as a first instance and further found that Mr. Qomoyi breached this rule, which led to disharmony in the workplace and a breakdown of the relationship between himself and other employees, and particularly Mr. Meyer. Relying on existing jurisprudence, the Court held that calling another employee racist without just cause, truth, and reasonable grounds constitutes serious misconduct and reveals that the person who makes the accusation is himself racist or displays a racist attitude. The Court concluded that, if objectively viewed, Mr. Qomoyi’s utterances to Mr. Meyer were racist, as there was no cause or reason to act as he did, and that he was pressing home his own racist tendencies and conduct towards Meyer.
CSAAWU has since appealed the matter to Labour Appeal Court (LAC), which heard the matter in March 2026. The fundamental question before the LAC is whether the reference to Mr. Meyer as a “white racist” is racist conduct, and whether the Labour Court’s finding that it amounts to racist conduct unjustifiably limits an employee’s right to freedom of expression. CSAAWU submits that, on its own, Mr. Qomoyi's remarks cannot be racist and that they fall within the constitutionally protected freedom of expression and opinion. As such, the Labour Court unjustifiably limited Mr Qomoyi’s right to freedom of expression and opinion, particularly because the truthfulness or falsity of the remark was never investigated by Namaqua Wines. CSAAWU further argues that costs should not have been awarded against it as it would have a chilling effect on litigants approaching the court with disputes.
On 8 April 2026, the Labour Appeal Court unanimously found in favour of Mr Qomoyi. The LAC upheld the appeal and set aside the entire order of Labour Court, including the chilling costs order against CSAAWU. The LAC found that Namaqua Wines's dismissal of Mr Qomoyi was substantively unfair and ordered it to reinstate him retrospectively—meaning that he is entitled to be compensation from the day of his dismissal.
Access the following documents: