Return to flip book view

The real reason for misconduct dismissals  

-  June 2019  -

1 THEREALREASONFORMISCONDUCTDISMISSALSMisconductintheemploymentenvironmentdoesnotstartandendwiththeemployer’sDisciplinaryCode.Yetmanyemployersandemployeesstillinsistontreatingsuchadocumentasanabsolutecodificationofallpermissibledisciplinaryactionsintheparticularworkplace.Asdoastartlingnumberofarbitrators.IntroductionEmployers could be forgiven for believing that a comprehensive Disciplinary Code and Procedure iseverything they need for managing discipline in the workplace. The more detailed, categorised, andprescriptive, the safer they feel in terms of corporate compliance with labour law requirements.Inevitably, disciplinary proceedings in such an environment have ‘charge sheets’ with specific pre‐formulatedalternativesfromtheCodeformanagerstochoosefrom(i.e.theclosestfittotheactualfacts)andamatrixofdisciplinarypenaltiescorrespondingtowhateveritemtheemployeeisfoundguiltyof.Alsoinevitably,theissueof(in)consistencyregularlyarises–sinceidenticallyframedchargeswhichhavecorrespondingpenaltiesintermsoftheCode,shouldhavethesameresult,right?It becomes a quagmire of technical points and disputes – both the employer and employees / theirrepresentatives insisting on their interpretation of the letter of the Code and fighting about theformulationofthechargesandwhathadbeenproved.Thesortoffightonewouldbeexpectingbetweenaprosecutoranddefencelawyerinacriminalcourt.IwouldarguethatthisisnotwhatisexpectedintheSouthAfricanworkplaceenvironmenttoday(seehttps://simplebooklet.com/disciplinarycharges)–andthecourtsagree,evenifsomearbitratorsstilldonot.  Unfortunately, it is at the level of arbitration that most misconduct disputes end, since fewemployers have the resources to embark on a lengthy and costly review process. As long as (some)arbitrators therefore still insist on a tick‐box approach, employers will find it difficult to risk movingforwardortoconvincetheiremployeesotherwise.Itishowevernecessaryforemployersandespeciallyemployeestounderstandwhy,regardlessofthecontentofanydisciplinarycodeandtechnicalarguments, they mayneverthelessbevalidlyandfairlydismissed.TheemploymentrelationshipTheemploymentrelationshipisofafiduciarynature–i.e.thismeansthatemployeesowetheiremployeradutyofgoodfaithandhonestyandmaynotputthemselvesinapositionwheretheirowninterestsconflict with those of their employer or advantage themselves at the expense of the employer. AsdescribedbytheLabourAppealCourtinSAPPINovoboard(Pty)LtdvBolleurs(1998)19ILJ784(LAC):“Itisanimpliedtermofthecontractofemploymentthattheemployeewillactwithgoodfaithtowardshisemployerandthathewillservehisemployerhonestlyandfaithfully.…..Ifanemployeedoesanythingincompatiblewiththedueorfaithfuldischargeofhisdutytohismaster,thelatterhasarighttodismisshim….”StandardsandrulesSchedule 8 item3(1) requires all employers to adopt disciplinaryrules that establish thestandard ofconductrequiredoftheiremployeesandcommunicatethesetotheir employees ‐ however, this

2 obligationdoesnotextendtodraftinga‘criminalcode’ofsorts,tabulatingallpossiblebreachesoftheserules.TheSchedulealsostatesthat‘somerulesorstandardsmaybesowellestablishedandknown’thatitisnotnecessarytocommunicatethemorwritethemup.Sincethedutyofgoodfaithanddiligenceoftheemployeetowardstheemployerisautomaticallyimpliedinevery employment relationship, anyconductof an employeewhichgoes againstthisduty (whetherthereisawrittenruleornot),wouldthereforepotentiallyconstituteabreachforwhichanemployeecouldbedisciplined.MisconductSchedule 8 mentions three grounds on which a termination of employment might be legitimate –includingdismissal‘forareasonrelatingtotheconductoftheemployee’.Thereasonforallconduct‐related breaches, discipline or dismissals would ultimately resort under the misconduct banner.Howsoeverthesemightbesub‐categorisedintodifferentspeciesofmisconductbyanemployerintheirdisciplinarycode(insubordination/‘negligence’/absenteeism/assault/etc.),suchlabelsshouldnotcreate a limited number of criminal‐style offences to be used as prescribed disciplinary charges. Thestandardofconductwhichisreallyatissue,isthatofdiligenceandgoodfaith,andanyconductthatgoesagainstthis,couldpotentiallyleadtoadismissalformisconduct.Itfollowsthatnotallactsofmisconductcanbemadetofitintooneofthe‘boxes’inadisciplinarycode.Schedule8makesitclearthateachcasemustbedeterminedonitsownmeritsandthe‘label’orwordingofacategorisedoffenceinadisciplinarycodecanthereforenot pre‐determine what an appropriatepenalty would be in all circumstances of breach of a specific rule,orbethebasisfordetermining(in)consistencyintheapplicationofdiscipline.Examples(Seefullarticleforcaselawandmoredetails)Dishonestyandtheintentiontodeceive‘Honesty’intheemploymentcontextispartoftheemployee’sdutyofgoodfaithandbreachthereofdoesnotnecessarilyrequireproofoftheemployee’sstateofmind,butcouldbecontraventionofanystandardofconductthatcouldreasonablyhavebeenexpectedofanemployeeactingingoodfaith.Anemployee’sconductandpersistenceinbeingrightallthroughthedisciplinaryproceedings,showedthatshe lacked judgement andcould not betrustedand reliedupon toact appropriatelyin the bestinterestsofheremployer.Herstancerevealedanotablelackofappreciationofherfiduciarydutiesandalackofconcernorinsightaboutthepossibilitythatheractionshadsignificantpotentialtocauseheremployerreputationalandfinancialprejudice.Wordingofthecharge/allegationsUnlikeincriminalproceedingswhereitissaidthat“thedescriptionofanystatutoryoffenceinthewordsofthelawcreatingtheoffence,orinsimilarwords,shallbesufficient”,amisconductchargedoesnotnecessarilyhavetobestrictlyframedinaccordancewiththewordingoftherelevantactsofmisconductas listed in the employer’s disciplinary code. It would be sufficient that the wording of the allegedmisconductconformed,withsufficientclaritysoastobeunderstoodbytheemployee,tothesubstanceandimportofanyoneormoreoftherelevantoffences/rules.Seniority/positionofauthoritySeniorityandthepositionoftheemployeeinfluenceshis/herfiduciaryresponsibilities–e.g.thedegreeoffreedomanemployeehastomakeandexecutebusinessdecisions; or the extent to which theemployerreliesontheemployee’sexpertiseandjudgementinconductingitsbusiness;andtheextentofthe employee’s position of trust. Generally, the more senior the employee, the more serious themisconduct–andamoreseverepenaltycanbejustifiedforsomeone in a managerial capacity incomparisontohis/hersubordinatewhomighthavecommittedthesamemisconduct,withoutitbeingregardedasinconsistent.

3 Itisclear,therefore,thatstrictproofoftheelementsofaformulated offence and applying thecorrespondingpenaltyfromadisciplinarycode,isnotwhatdisciplinaryactionandmisconductdismissalsintheworkplaceareaboutanditisnotwhatSchedule8requires.Thereisadefiniteoperationalbackdropandinherentcommonlawobligations,whichgofarbeyondalistofoffencesinsuchacode.Similarly,theappropriatesanctionshouldbedeterminedforeachindividualbreach,withthiscontextinmind.Thefactthatthesamewordingisusedintheformulationofchargesagainsttwodifferentemployees,doesnotmeanthatthecircumstancesofthetwoincidentsarethesameandshouldattractthesamesanction.DecidingontheappropriatepenaltyIn deciding on a balanced sanction, consideration must be giventotheinfraction/offence,thecircumstancesoftheemployeeaswellastheinterestsoftheemployerandtheotheremployees.Theseriousnessofmisconductintheemploymentcontextdependsthereforenotonlyontheactionsoftheemployeeitself,butonthewayinwhichitimpactsontheemployer’sbusinessanditsotheremployees.Thisnotonlypertains torisk, but also tothemessageanemployer sendstoitsemployees regardingmisconductofthisnature.Manyofthefactorsthatshouldbeconsidered,havebeenpointedoutbythecourtsovertheyears.Inparticular, the lack of acknowledgement or remorse has been accepted as a definitive factor whenconsideringpenalty:InHulettAluminium(Pty)LtdvBargainingCouncilfortheMetalIndustry&others[2008]3BLLR241(LC)thecourtheldthat“...whatevertheamountofmitigation,therelationshipisunlikelytoberestoredoncedishonestyhasbeenestablishedinparticularinacasewheretheemployeeshowsnoremorse.”In Absa Bank v CCMA and Others [2015] ZALCJHB the court stated that the employee’s blatantmisrepresentation “.....putthe bank at riskand was a breach ofthe employee’s fiduciary duties. Sheshowed no remorse and even at the arbitration maintained her false version of events. In thosecircumstances,theemploymentrelationshiphadirretrievablybrokendown.”Itisabundantlyclearthatachairpersonatadisciplinaryhearinghasalotmoretoconsiderthansimplyperusingtheitemsintheemployer’sdisciplinarycode.Crucially,theemployermustplacerelevantissuessuchasthesebeforeanyarbitratordecidingiftheemployer’sdecisiontodismissanemployeehadbeenfair. It demonstrates that the decision maker has applied his/her mind to the circumstances of theparticularcaseanditenablesthearbitratortodothesame.ConclusionTherealpurposeandroleofdisciplineintheworkplace,andthetruereasonsformisconductdismissals,arenotunderstoodbymanymanagers,HRpractitionersandunionofficials–especiallyiftheyhadbeenschooledindisciplinebywayofinstitutionalpracticeonly(whichislargelyprocedural).Manydisciplinary/arbitrationtrainingworkshopsalsojustfocusonlitigationskillsortheproceduralsideofmisconductproceedings,withoutexplainingthebroadercontext.Commissionersstillforcingemployersintosettlementsbecausetherelevant“charge”hadnotbeenspeltoutin a matrix‐like disciplinary code, are equally missing the point, butalthoughmany misconceivedarbitrationawardshavebeensetasidebythecourtswiththereasonsrepeatedlyexplained,thisisstillhappeningfartoooften.Mostly,however,Ifindthatemployeesthemselveshaveverylittleunderstandingorappreciationofthetrustrelationshipandthedutiestheyowetheiremployer.Theywanttogetstuckontechnicalitiesarounddisciplinaryissuesandrefusetoacknowledgeanywrongdoinguntilthebitterend.Itbecomesespeciallyconcerning when an employee’s dogged and singular insistence on being right in the face ofoverwhelmingindicationstothecontrary,onlyservestorevealanutterlackofjudgement,unreliabilityandnochanceofasalvageabletrustrelationship.Theriskofcontinuedemploymentbecomesglaringlyapparentanddismissalanunavoidableresult.Atechnicalargumentthattheemployer’sdisciplinarycodedoesnot‘permit’dismissalforafirstoffenceinsuchcircumstances,willbeentirelyirrelevant.

4 AspertheLabourAppealCourtinDe BeersConsolidatedMinesLtdvCCMA&others(2000)ILJ1051(LAC), dismissalwouldbe justifiedif continuedemployment of the offenderwill be operationallytoorisky.“Dismissalisnotanexpressionofmoraloutrage;muchlessisitanactofvengeance.Itis,orshouldbe, a sensible operational response to risk management in the particular enterprise. That is whysupermarketshelfpackerswhostealsmallitemsareroutinelydismissed.Theirdismissalhaslittletodowithsociety'smoralopprobriumofaminortheft;ithaseverything to do with the operationalrequirementsoftheemployer'senterprise.” ©Judith Griessel ____________________________________________________________________________________www.griesselconsulting.co.zaJune2019A more comprehensive version of this article with case law examples and discussions is available here.