31/08/2026
LABOUR COURT UPHOLDS IMATU MEMBER’S REINSTATEMENT
Mahikeng Local Municipality v SALGBC and Others – Case No. JR1580/23
IMATU is pleased to highlight a recent Labour Court judgment concerning an IMATU member who was dismissed after approximately 15 years of service as a Fire Prevention Officer.
The member faced three disciplinary charges:
• Charge 1: Being a director of a private company without obtaining prior Municipal Council consent and failing to disclose the directorship. The company was dormant and had never traded.
• Charge 2: Allegedly soliciting, or intending to solicit, payment from a member of the public in connection with a fire clearance certificate.
• Charge 3: Allegedly exceeding his authority by issuing a venue clearance certificate for Dika Park.
The arbitrator found the member not guilty on all three charges, found his dismissal substantively unfair and ordered his retrospective reinstatement with back pay.
The Municipality took the award on review to the Labour Court, with IMATU opposing the review application on behalf of the member.
The Court disagreed with the Arbitrator in relation to Charge 1, finding that the member had contravened section 4(2)(c) of Schedule 2 to the Municipal Systems Act by being registered as a director without obtaining prior Council consent. Importantly, however, the Court agreed with the Arbitrator that Charges 2 and 3 had not been proved.
In considering the appropriate sanction, the Court found that dismissal was too harsh.
The Court took into account, among other factors:
• The member's approximately 15 years of unblemished service;
• There was no evidence of dishonesty or financial gain;
• The private company was not shown to have traded or generated income;
• The Municipality had failed to properly communicate the disclosure requirement to employees below senior management level; and
• The Municipality had continued to allow the member to perform his normal duties throughout the investigation and disciplinary process, including the very inspection and certification functions said to have been compromised.
The Court found that this conduct did not support the Municipality's contention that the trust relationship had irretrievably broken down.
The Labour Court found the dismissal substantively unfair and ordered the Municipality to reinstate the member on terms and conditions no less favourable than those that applied before his dismissal. However, because the Court found that Charge 1 had been established, the reinstatement was not retrospective and no back pay was awarded. The Court made no order as to costs.
Key lessons from the Judgment
This Judgment is an important reminder that a breach of a statutory or workplace requirement does not automatically mean that dismissal is an appropriate sanction. The seriousness of the misconduct and the appropriate sanction must be assessed in context, including the employee's length of service, disciplinary record, circumstances surrounding the misconduct, actual prejudice or gain, and the employer's own conduct.
The Judgment also reinforces that an employer's assertion that the trust relationship has broken down must be consistent with the employer's conduct. Where an employee continues to perform the same duties during an investigation and disciplinary process, this may be relevant when assessing whether dismissal is genuinely justified on the basis of a breakdown in trust.
The Court adopted a broad interpretation of the phrase "engaged in any business" in section 4(2)(c) of Schedule 2 to the Municipal Systems Act. On the Court's interpretation, being registered as a director of a company may be sufficient, even where the company is dormant and has never traded. Until there is contrary authority from a higher court, IMATU members should therefore err on the side of disclosure and seek the necessary prior consent where there is any uncertainty regarding an outside company interest or directorship.
READ THE FULL JUDGMENT HERE:
https://imatu.co.za/labour-court-upholds-imatu-members-reinstatement/
