In a significant ruling, the Labour Court has upheld the reinstatement of a long-serving Sibanye Stillwater human resources officer who was dismissed for the paradoxical reason of working on his scheduled day off. The case, which began in 2018, highlights the critical role of procedural fairness and proportionality in workplace discipline.
The employee, Mapholoba, had an unblemished record of over 31 years with the company. The incident leading to his dismissal occurred in December 2017 when he received a phone call from an HR colleague, Nqini, instructing him to report for duty on December 23rd—his day off. Trusting the instruction, Mapholoba arrived at the mine but encountered a procedural hiccup: after fetching a forgotten clock-in card, he only clocked in at one of the two required points.
Later that day, he asked Nqini to manually correct his timesheet to reflect his actual 6 am start time. Nqini admitted in testimony that she had indeed called Mapholoba to work and that she was the one who initiated the improper manual clocking. Despite this, Sibanye Stillwater dismissed Mapholoba for dishonesty, citing a company policy that classifies such an act as a dismissible offense.
The case first went to the CCMA, where an arbitrator found the dismissal substantively unfair. The arbitrator ruled that the dishonesty was minor, considering Mapholoba’s decades of clean service, and replaced the dismissal with a final written warning and an order for nearly four years of backpay.
Sibanye Stillwater appealed to the Labour Court, arguing that the arbitrator was too lenient. However, Acting Judge Moses Baloyi dismissed the company’s application for review. The judge found the CCMA’s decision reasonable, noting that Mapholoba had reported to work based on a legitimate instruction and that the colleague who called him had admitted to her own procedural error.
While Judge Baloyi upheld the reinstatement, he partially agreed with Sibanye on the issue of backpay. He noted that delays caused by Mapholoba’s legal representatives had prolonged the case unnecessarily. Therefore, the court reduced the backpay award to six months’ remuneration, stating that without the delays, the arbitration should have been concluded within a year.
The ruling reinforces the principle that even in cases of misconduct, the punishment must fit the offense, especially when mitigating factors—such as a long history of faithful service and procedural misunderstandings—are present.
About The Author
