Ms Andira Maharaj, an accountant with over 13 years of service, was dismissed by her employer the Jewellery Council of South Africa following allegations of gross disrespect towards the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), Ms Lorna Lloyd. The allegations stemmed from statements Ms Maharaj purportedly made during an altercation with Ms Lloyd on 7 June 2021, including accusations of financial mismanagement and ineffectiveness.
Ms Maharaj allegedly accused Ms Lloyd of “raping” the Company (implying financial exploitation), criticised her leadership capabilities, and threatened to report her actions to the Board’s Chairperson. She was charged with these allegations and was subsequently dismissed. She then referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (“the CCMA”).
Central to the case was Ms Maharaj’s claim that her dismissal was unfair, citing unfair treatment in response to her reduced working hours and salary. She alleged further that the Company had unilaterally imposed a reduction in her workdays and salary amidst financial constraints, a move Ms Maharaj perceived as discriminatory.
The CCMA found Ms Maharaj’s dismissal to be substantively unfair and ordered the Company to pay Ms Maharaj 8 months’ compensation based on her remuneration package before the reduction. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the Company brought a review application in the Labour Court.
The Labour Court scrutinized the Award, and focused on whether the Commissioner had erred in his findings. The Court upheld the Commissioner’s decision to award 8 months’ compensation but found that the compensation had to be calculated according to Ms Maharaj’s remuneration package at the time of her dismissal.
The Labour Court highlighted several critical points:
- Allegations of Misconduct:The court acknowledged the context in which the altercation took place and noted that most of Ms Maharaj’s evidence was largely uncontested by Ms Lloyd. It was found that while tensions were evident, Ms Maharaj’s actions did not constitute gross misconduct warranting dismissal. The Court concluded that Ms Maharaj’s statements to Ms Lloyd to the effect that she would take Ms Lloyd to the CCMA and/or the Courts were not disrespectful, and that the other allegations made by her were largely factually correct;
-
Compensation Calculation: As the Commissioner had incorrectly based his calculation on Ms Maharaj’s previous salary package, the Court found this to be incorrect and adjusted it to the reduced salary rate at the date of the dismissal in accordance with section 194 of the LRA.
Employers must exercise caution when disciplining employees. They must ensure that they generally comply with their codes of conduct, disciplinary codes, and the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal. Employers must also be particularly cautious when disciplining employees for gross insolence, as their subjective view on the matter may conflict with the objective standard required by the Labour Relations Act. Employers should take specialist legal advice when dealing with matters of this nature.
