A CCMA commissioner has landed in serious trouble after a ruling leaned on a court case that cannot be found anywhere. The Johannesburg Labour Court has now stepped in, stopped the planned arbitration and said the commissioner appears to have trusted artificial intelligence without checking its work.
This labor court decision is a clear warning for lawyers, arbitrators and ordinary workers. It also shows how easy it is to trust a smart sounding answer that turns out to be false.
What happened in the case
Six workers lost their jobs at the South African Post Office in December 2025. They took their dispute to the CCMA, which is the body that helps settle workplace disagreements. The matter landed in front of commissioner Menzi Fakude.
The Post Office is currently in business rescue. That is a legal process that gives a struggling company breathing space while it tries to recover. The question was whether the workers could still pursue unfair dismissal claims during this period. They wanted their jobs back and they wanted back pay.
In August 2026, the commissioner decided they could. He said business rescue does not switch off labour laws or block workers from using official dispute processes. That is a fair legal idea on its face. The trouble was the support he used for it.
The case that was never there
To back up his view, the commissioner pointed to a Constitutional Court judgment from 2023. He described it as decisive on the issue. The citation he gave carried the name of a company in business rescue and a trade union.
When the Post Office checked, it found a problem. The citation did not lead to a case about business rescue at all. It led to a judgment about immigration and spousal visas. In other words, the case he relied on did not exist in the form he described.
The business rescue practitioners who run the Post Office raised this in court papers. They asked the labor court to step in before the arbitration went ahead. It was set down for 15 October 2026.
What the judge said
Acting Judge Sean Snyman looked at the matter and agreed. He also searched for the case and could not find it. His view was blunt. It appeared the commissioner must have used AI to look for backing for his reasoning, and did not check whether the result was real.
The judge made a very simple point about how the technology should be used. If an arbitrator uses AI for research, the arbitrator must still confirm that any case it suggests actually exists. The arbitrator must then read that case to see whether it really says what the AI claims.
That is not a hard rule to follow. It is a basic part of the job.
The court did not name any specific AI tool. It also did not have direct proof of which technology was used. The finding was that the commissioner’s conduct pointed strongly towards AI.
The orders the court made
The Labour Court granted urgent relief to the Post Office. It stopped the CCMA and the commissioner from going ahead with the planned arbitration. That arbitration would have dealt with the workers’ claims.
The judge also said the Post Office has strong prospects in its main review application. That is where the full merits of the dispute will be argued. For now, the arbitration is on hold until the review is dealt with.
Separately, the practitioners applied to the high court in June 2026 to end the business rescue. That application is still pending.
Here is a simple timeline of the key events:
| Date | What happened |
|---|---|
| December 2025 | Six Post Office workers are dismissed |
| August 2026 | CCMA commissioner rules the claims can proceed |
| 15 October 2026 | Planned arbitration date, which the court stopped |
| Late October 2026 | Labour Court hands down its reasons |
Why this matters to ordinary workers
Many South Africans turn to the CCMA when they feel an employer has treated them unfairly. It is meant to be a quick and affordable route to justice. People expect the decisions made there to rest on real law.
If a ruling is built on a fake case, the damage can be real. A worker might win something they should not keep. An employer might lose something it should not lose. Either way, trust in the process takes a knock.
In this matter, the court showed it takes this seriously. A decision based on something that does not exist can be undone, and that costs everyone time and money.
Not the first warning
South African courts have been raising the alarm about AI hallucinations for some time. This is when an AI tool produces confident answers that look right but are made up. It can invent case names, citations and even quotes.
Judge Snyman noted that courts have already complained about this problem among legal practitioners. He also referred to comments by Judge Ingrid Opperman, who called for zero tolerance after a full bench appeal in the Gauteng High Court. That matter involved an acting judge who was found to have used AI hallucinations.
Another recent labor court ruling, in a case involving the Matjhabeng Local Municipality, also dealt with fake citations. Legal commentators said that relying on made up authority can show a failure to apply your mind to the law.
A global database of court cases involving AI hallucinations, kept by legal researcher Damien Charlotin, lists six such incidents in South Africa. The number may well grow.
Lessons for everyone using AI
You do not need to be a judge or a lawyer to learn from this. Many people now use AI tools at work and at home. The tools are quick and useful. They are also capable of getting things badly wrong.
Here are some easy habits worth following:
- Check every fact that matters before you rely on it.
- Read the original source, not just the summary an AI gives you.
- Never copy a case name or citation without confirming it exists.
- Treat AI as a helper, not as the final authority.
These steps are simple, and they take only a few minutes. In legal work especially, those minutes can protect a client, a career and a case.
If you want to understand how workplace disputes are handled, the official CCMA website explains the process in plain terms. For wider information on labour rights, the Department of Employment and Labour is a trusted place to start.
What happens next
The main review will decide whether the commissioner’s original ruling stands. Until then, the six former employees are waiting, and so is the Post Office. The workers still have not had their dismissal claims heard on the merits.
For the CCMA, the case is an embarrassing moment. It also gives the institution a reason to remind its commissioners about proper checks. Verification is not optional, especially when a person’s job and income are on the line.
The message from this labor court judgment is easy to understand. AI can help with research, but a human must still do the checking. When that step is skipped, the whole decision can fall apart.
About the Author
