Labour Court flags inconsistent discipline in municipal dismissal case

The Labour Court in Johannesburg reviewed an arbitration award that upheld the dismissal of a municipal cashier, Ms TS Scheepers, by Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality.

Scheepers and another cashier were dismissed for under‑banking municipal funds. The dispute centred on whether the Municipality applied discipline consistently, given that another employee, Portia Rapudi, who committed similar misconduct, was not dismissed.

The commissioner issued the award without hearing oral evidence and incorrectly recorded a disputed fact as common cause. The Court found this to be a reviewable irregularity and remitted the matter for a fresh hearing before a different commissioner.

The legal issues the Court decided

• Absence of oral evidence and stated case
  • The commissioner decided the matter without viva voce evidence and without a formal stated case, relying only on heads of argument and documents.
  • The Labour Court held that this was improper because disputed facts required evidence to resolve them.
• Incorrect recording of disputed facts
  • The commissioner incorrectly found it common cause that Scheepers pleaded not guilty at the disciplinary hearing.
  • This was a disputed issue and influenced the finding that Rapudi’s case was distinguishable.
• Consistency in discipline
  • The core issue was whether the Municipality acted inconsistently by dismissing Scheepers while retaining Rapudi, who committed similar misconduct.
  • The Court did not decide this question but ordered a new hearing confined to this issue.
• Appropriate relief
  • The Court declined to substitute its own finding on fairness because factual disputes remain unresolved. Instead, it ordered a de novo arbitration focused on consistency and relief.

Key takeaways for employers

• Consistency is critical. Unequal treatment for similar misconduct exposes employers to review risk. Document reasons for any differential treatment clearly and objectively.
• Do not shortcut procedure. Where facts are disputed, oral evidence or a properly agreed stated case is essential. Avoid relying solely on heads of argument.
• Accuracy matters. Misrecording disputed facts as common cause can render an award reviewable. Ensure clarity on what is agreed and what is contested.
• Prepare for scrutiny. If you argue that dismissal was fair, lead evidence on aggravating factors, remorse, and breakdown of trust.

Key takeaways for employees

• Challenge inconsistency. If others guilty of similar misconduct received lighter sanctions, raise this issue early and keep records.
• Insist on proper process. Where facts are disputed, ensure the commissioner hears evidence or that a stated case is agreed.
• Heads of argument are not enough. Make sure your version of disputed facts is properly placed on record and supported by evidence.

Useful tips

For employers

Before dismissing, ask:

• Have similar cases been treated the same way?
• Are reasons for any difference documented?
• Is there clear evidence of dishonesty, lack of remorse, or breakdown of trust?
• Will the process withstand review scrutiny?

For employees

• Keep copies of disciplinary records, pre‑arbitration minutes, and correspondence.
• If you dispute a fact, insist it is recorded as such and request oral evidence if necessary.

Conclusion

This judgment underscores that fairness in discipline is not only about the nature of the misconduct but also about consistency and proper procedure. Employers must apply rules evenly and ensure that disputed facts are resolved through evidence, not assumption. Employees should monitor for inconsistent treatment and insist on due process.

For advice or more information, please contact Riona Kalua, head of our Labour and Employment team.