Discipline and Dismissal

Ivan Israelstam

 Labour Relations Act favours re-instatement as the first port of call


The CCMA, bargaining council, Labour Court, Labour Appeal Court or private arbitrator are empowered to take very strong action against employers who commit unfair labour practices or dismiss employees unfairly.

The types of penalties/corrective actions that have typically been imposed include reinstatement, re-employment, interdicts, promotion of the employee, reversal of a demotion, reduction of a disciplinary penalty reinstatement of benefits, and compensation.

We need to look at each of these remedies in detail because they can have a severe effect on the employer's financial and/or operational circumstances.

Employers are warned that the Labour Relations Act (LRA) favours re-instatement as the first remedy for unfair dismissal. Section 193 (2) provides that: "The Labour Court or the arbitrator must require the employer to reinstate or re-employ the employee unless:

a) the employee does not wish to be reinstated or re-employed;

b) the circumstances surrounding the dismissal are such that a continued employment relationship would be intolerable;

c) it is not reasonably practicable for an employer to reinstate or re-employ the employee; or

d) the dismissal is unfair only because the employer did not follow a fair procedure.


"Reinstatement" means that the employer must take the employee back with retrospective effect to the date of dismissal. For example, if the employee was unfairly dismissed on February 1 2002 and the reinstatement award was made on May 31 2004 then the employer would have to give the employee back pay for 28 months!

In the recent case of Popcru and others v Minister of Correctional Services, 75 correctional officers were fired for refusing to work overtime. Prior to the dismissals the employer had successfully obtained an interdict prohibiting this overtime "rebellion". During the year- end holiday period the employees failed to turn up for work.

When asked for their reasons they all claimed to be sick. They were all dismissed on January 3 of the new year without a disciplinary hearing. The court found that the dismissals were unfair and ordered the employer to reinstate all 75 employees.

Under a "re-employment" order the employer is required to take the employee back, not from the date of dismissal, but with effect from the date of the award (or an earlier date). While this is not as harsh as a full reinstatement it could cause serious problems for the employer if it is unable to accommodate the employee due to relationship problems or operational circumstances.

If, for example, an employee was unfairly dismissed for discriminatory reasons the court could, in addition to reinstatement, issue an interdict (order) prohibiting the employer from continuing with its discriminatory acts.

Should it be found that the employer was guilty of unfairly failing to promote an employee the arbitrator could order the employer to promote the employee. Likewise, if the employer demoted or disciplined the employee unfairly, the arbitrator could order the reversal of the demotion/discipline.

Should the employer have unfairly removed, reduced or refused an employee's benefit (eg medical aid or pension) the arbitrator could order the employer to restore or provide the benefit to the employee. Where other remedies are considered by the court or arbitrator to be inappropriate then compensation may be awarded.

This means that the employer is ordered to pay the employee reparations to recompense him/her for the loss of his/her job, benefits, status etc. Under certain circumstances compensation can be as much as 24 months' remuneration.


In Steen v Wetherleys (2006,2 BLLR 222), a branch manager was dismissed for theft or gross negligence after a large quantity of goods disappeared. The dismissal was based largely on the results of a polygraph test and the evidence of an investigator.

However, the commissioner rejected the polygraph test results as unscientific. He/she also rejected the investigator's report as it constituted hearsay evidence. The branch manager was neither the only person in charge of the goods in question nor was she in charge of security. She also did not work at night when most of the stock had disappeared.

The CCMA found the dismissal to be unfair and awarded the employee 12 months' remuneration in compensation. It is clear that, regardless of the nature of the remedy, it could, in different ways, prove extremely costly to the employer. Employers therefore need to:


·Undergo intensive training in labour law in order to avoid breaking it; ·Discard the attitude that nobody will dictate to them how to treat their employees; and ·Learn how to manage employees effectively within the parameters of the law. Our appreciation to Ivan and The Star newspaper for permission to publish this articleIvan Israelstam can be contacted on 082-852-2973 or

Case Law Summaries and Articles


Can employees be dismissed for refusing to accept new terms and conditions of employment?

Can an employer dismiss employees because they refuse to agree to a change to their terms and conditions of employment? An initial answer may be, “yes”.

Read More >>>


Escape route: “Resignation with immediate effect”

The latest case in the ‘disciplining employees who have resigned with immediate effect’ saga has brought about more uncertainty as to whether an employee who resigns with immediate effect shortly before a disciplinary hearing can avoid disciplinary action and subsequent dismissal.

Read More >>>


Freedom of expression or incitement to commit an offence? A constitutional challenge

On 4 July 2019, the North Gauteng High Court handed down judgment in the case of The EFF and other v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and other (87638/2017 and 45666/2017) in which the EFF and Julius Malema (the applicants) sought to have s18(2)(b) of the Riotous Assemblies Act, No 17 of 1956 (Riotous Act) declared unconstitutional.

Read More >>>


Consolidated, comprehensive or general final written warnings

Regarding dismissal, according to the Code of Good Practice, “the courts have endorsed the concept of corrective or progressive discipline. This approach regards the purpose of discipline as a means for employees to know and understand what standards are required of them.

Read More >>>







Courses and Workshops




Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Course

22 August 2019 (Fully Booked)

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Cape Town

12 September 2019

Southern Sun: Maharani Towers: Durban

Employment Equity Committee Training

23 August 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

29 August 2019 (Fully Booked)

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Cape Town

30 August 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Cape Town

Shop Steward Training

28 August 2019

Emperors Palace Convention Centre

Basic Labour Relations

04 September 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

The OHS Act and the Responsibilities of Management

13 September 2019

Southern Sun: Maharani Towers: Durban

19 September 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre


 Our Clients 


Android App On Google Play

Android App On Google Play