Dishonesty, even when instructed, breaches the trust at the heart of the employment relationship and can justify a dismissal, according to Amandla Makhongwana, senior associate at Bowmans.
Makhongwana says the Labour Court’s judgment in Mbuyane v Dekker NO and Others (JR1173/2020) [2025] ZALCJHB 224 serves as a poignant reminder that integrity is not negotiable, even under pressure from management.
Banele Innocent Mbuyane, a former treasury custodian at Standard Bank, shared operational duties with his supervisor, Ms Nkosi. According to Amandla Makhongwana, senior associate at Bowmans: “In carrying out this function, Mbuyane and Nkosi were responsible for receiving cash from a security company, SBV. If the amount received was incorrect, they had to return the cash to SBV and prepare balance sheets that correctly corresponded with the amounts received from SBV.”
In October 2019, Mbuyane discovered a shortfall in a coinage bag and alerted Nkosi. Despite agreeing to return the bag, “Nkosi instructed him to record the full amount that was originally ordered instead of the actual amount received,” says Makhongwana. Mbuyane complied, and the falsified balance was submitted, misrepresenting the bank’s actual cash position.
A surprise inspection by the risk mitigation team at Standard Bank uncovered the discrepancy, along with two other shortfalls. Both Mbuyane and Nkosi were dismissed. Mbuyane challenged his dismissal at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), maintaining that he had simply followed a superior’s instruction.
“The arbitrator found that Mbuyane’s conduct amounted to serious misconduct despite acting on his supervisor’s instruction,” says Makhongwana.
Mbuyane’s failure to escalate the misrepresentation to higher management was seen as a critical breach of trust. Moreover, the CCMA rejected the notion of an accepted informal practice of overlooking shortfalls. As Makhongwana puts it, “No practice could override the bank’s formal policies and ethical standards.”
Seeking a remedy, Mbuyane approached the Labour Court to review the arbitration award. The Court upheld the findings of dishonesty, holding that “compliance with an unlawful instruction does not excuse misconduct.” It was found that Mbuyane deliberately submitted inaccurate records over two days and had a duty to act lawfully, regardless of who issued the directive, says Makhongwana.
Defences based on insufficient training did not hold water. “Testimony by the branch manager confirmed that no specific training was available for treasury custodians and that expectations were clear for a person in Mbuyane’s position,” says Makhongwana. Even if an informal practice of retaining short coin bags existed, it was unauthorised and irrelevant to the charge of misrepresentation.
Source: www.iol.co.za | By
For questions or advise, please contact the Cofesa national helpline:
(t): 011 679 4373
(c): 072 341 3382 | 082 656 4957
(e): karenbellcofesa@hotmail.com | etienne@cofesa.co.za
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. Readers are advised to always consult with a Labour Law Practitioner before acting on the information. 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.