An employer who is responsible for setting the rules in the workplace, must also abide by them

That is the lesson from the Labour Court’s ruling in Mahonono v National Heritage Council and Others (J742/2022) 2022 ZALCJHB 188 (18 July 2022). In the workplace employers assume the responsibility of putting policies in place to regulate the relations between that employer and its employees. However, what happens when the employer decides not to follow the provisions of its own policies?

29 Aug 2022 2 min read Employment Law Alert Article

At a glance

  • Employers have a responsibility to implement and adhere to policies that regulate their relationship with employees.
  • In the case of Mahonono v National Heritage Council, the employer attempted to bypass its own disciplinary policy and terminate the employee's contract based on the principle of repudiation.
  • The Labour Court ruled that the employer's actions constituted a breach, ordered the reinstatement of the employee, and emphasized the importance of employers following their own policies, with potential consequences and costs for non-compliance.

In the recent case of Mahonono v National Heritage Council and Others (J742/2022) 2022 ZALCJHB 188 (18 July 2022), the matter involved Ms. Mahonono (employee), who had been charged by the National Heritage Council (employer) for non-compliance with its supply chain management policy, and breach of the Public Service Act, of 1994. The employee was placed on unpaid suspension pending the finalisation of a disciplinary inquiry.

Following various delays in the disciplinary inquiry, which the employer attributed to the employee, the employer, through its CEO, issued a letter to the employee alleging that her behaviour at the disciplinary inquiry amounted to a repudiation of the employment contract and that the employer was entitled to circumvent its policies to conclude the disciplinary inquiry in an expedited manner. Furthermore, that the employee’s legal representative made allegations which implied that the employee no longer trusted the employer. In terms of the latter, the employee was given an opportunity to provide written submissions as to why her repudiation should not be accepted. The employee, in her submissions, alleged that the employer was attempting to establish a process parallel to the disciplinary inquiry in conflict with its own policies and that this amounted to a breach of the provisions of her contract of employment. The employee was dismissed and approached the Labour Court on an urgent basis.

Proceedings in the labour court

The Labour Court found that the matter should be treated as urgent. On the merits, it found that the employer was not entitled to bypass its own disciplinary policy and procedure and cancel the contract of employment based on the common law principle of repudiation. The court held that the employer’s decision to circumvent the ongoing disciplinary inquiry and its own policies, which were incorporated in the employee’s contract of employment, constituted a breach. The court ordered, amongst other things, that the employer reinstate the employee (who had not acted in a manner that indicated that she was not interested in taking part in the disciplinary inquiry) and that the employer must comply with its own policies. The court granted the order for specific performance and went further to show its disapproval of the employer’s conduct by ordering the employer to pay the employee’s costs.

Take home points?

Employers are required to abide by and follow their own policies, more so when such policies have been incorporated in their employees’ contracts of employment. A failure by the employer to follow its own policies may very well amount to a breach, giving employees a remedy of specific performance and being awarded a cost order against the employer.

The information and material published on this website is provided for general purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. We make every effort to ensure that the content is updated regularly and to offer the most current and accurate information. Please consult one of our lawyers on any specific legal problem or matter. We accept no responsibility for any loss or damage, whether direct or consequential, which may arise from reliance on the information contained in these pages. Please refer to our full terms and conditions. Copyright © 2024 Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr. All rights reserved. For permission to reproduce an article or publication, please contact us