Polygraphed and dismissed: When trust becomes a test

In a judgment delivered on 21 August 2025, the Labour Court of South Africa dismissed an application by Securiforce CC to review and set aside an arbitration award that found the dismissal of a security officer, Mr John Ntholeng, to be substantively unfair. The case centred on the use of polygraph testing in the security industry, the classification of dismissal reasons, and the distinction between incapacity and operational requirements.

This case presents critical legal lessons for employers who rely on polygraph tests and contractual clauses to justify termination, as well as for employees navigating the complexities of dismissal procedures.

Legal implications

Polygraph testing and employment contracts

• The employment contract between Securiforce and Mr Ntholeng included a clause requiring regular polygraph testing. It stated that failure to pass such a test could lead to dismissal due to incapacity. However, the Labour Court clarified that failing a polygraph test does not automatically render an employee incapable of performing their duties.
• The court reaffirmed that polygraph results, while admissible, must be treated with caution. They are not definitive proof of dishonesty or misconduct and cannot be the sole basis for dismissal unless corroborated by other evidence.

Incapacity vs operational requirements

• A central issue was the employer’s classification of the dismissal as one based on “incapacity due to operational requirements.” The Commissioner found this concept to be legally incoherent and concluded that the dismissal was, in substance, due to operational requirements.
• The Labour Court agreed, stating that –
  • Incapacity relates to an employee’s inability to perform duties due to ill health or poor performance.
  • Operational requirements relate to the employer’s business needs, such as restructuring or loss of a client.
• In this case, Mr Ntholeng was removed from the client’s site due to failing a polygraph test and was dismissed when no alternative placement could be found. This, the court held, was clearly a dismissal for operational requirements.

Severance pay and compensation

• Because the dismissal was effectively for operational reasons, Mr Ntholeng should have been entitled to severance pay. The Commissioner awarded him two months’ remuneration as compensation, which the court found to be reasonable and justified.
• This reinforces the principle that misclassifying the reason for dismissal can deprive employees of statutory entitlements, and such errors may result in compensation awards.

Reviewability of arbitration awards

• The employer argued that the Commissioner had misconstrued the nature of the enquiry.
• The court rejected this, finding that the Commissioner had properly considered the evidence and applied the correct legal framework.
• The judgment reiterates that arbitration awards will only be set aside if they are unreasonable or based on a gross irregularity.

Key takeaways

For employers

• Be clear on dismissal grounds: Misclassifying a dismissal can lead to legal challenges and compensation awards. Understand the difference between incapacity and operational requirements.
• Use polygraph tests responsibly: Polygraph results should not be treated as conclusive. They must be supported by other evidence and used within a fair process.
• Follow proper procedures: If dismissal is due to operational requirements, follow the correct retrenchment procedures, including consultation and severance pay.

For employees

• Know your rights: Employees dismissed for operational reasons are entitled to severance pay. Challenge dismissals that are misclassified.
• Challenge unfair dismissals: Even if a dismissal appears procedurally fair, it may still be substantively unfair if the underlying reason is flawed.
• Polygraph tests are not final: Failing a polygraph test does not automatically mean dismissal is justified. Employees can contest the validity and interpretation of such results.

Final thoughts

This case underscores the importance of precision in employment law. Employers must not rely on contractual clauses alone to justify dismissal, especially when those clauses blur legal categories. The Labour Court’s decision affirms that fairness in dismissal requires both procedural correctness and substantive justification.

In industries where trust is paramount, such as security, polygraph testing may be a helpful tool, but it cannot replace sound legal reasoning and fair labour practices.

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