See no evil, speak no evil: reporting misconduct

Enforcing workplace rules frequently relies on employees reporting misconduct that they have witnessed by fellow employees to their employer. This is vital for maintaining workplace discipline and ensuring that employees adhere to the employer's rules. But what is the worst that can happen to an employee who elects to protect a fellow employee by keeping quiet about their transgressions?

The CCMA recently adjudicated an unfair dismissal dispute in the case of Makhoba v The Magic Company [2024] 6 BALR 632 (CCMA). In this matter, the employer found two employees close to one another who appeared to have been consuming alcohol on the employer’s premises. The employer could not prove that the dismissed employee B  indeed consumed alcohol on the employer’s premises.

The employer’s policy specifically provided that “the employee shall immediately report any breach of company standards and rules.” Employee B was aware of this rule in the workplace and could offer no plausible reason for his failure to report employee A’s misconduct as he had had sufficient time to do so. 

The CCMA also mentioned that Employee B’s dishonesty during testimony coupled with his lack of remorse and lack of appreciation for the wrongfulness of his conduct pointed to the unlikelihood of the possibility of correcting Employee B’s behaviour through progressive discipline. In light thereof, it was found that the employer’s dismissal was substantively fair. The CCMA thereby confirmed that a failure to report wrongdoing could lead to dismissal as a valid sanction by an employer.

Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and is not necessarily that of the firm. The content is provided for information only and should not be seen as an exact or complete exposition of the law. Accordingly, no reliance should be placed on the content for any reason whatsoever and no action should be taken on the basis thereof unless its application and accuracy has been confirmed by a legal advisor. The firm and author(s) cannot be held liable for any prejudice or damage resulting from action taken on the basis of this content without further written confirmation by the author(s). 

October 30, 2024
Customary and Civil marriages are equal, says Constitutional Court

Customary and Civil marriages are equal, says Constitutional Court

The Constitutional Court has recently delivered a significant judgment reaffirming that customary marriages and civil marriages hold equal legal status. Importantly, the Court clarified the implications and validity of antenuptial contracts within the context of customary marriages.

CSOS or Court? The choice is yours

CSOS or Court? The choice is yours

The recent judgment in Parch Properties 72 (Pty) Ltd v Summervale Lifestyle Estate Owner’s Association and Others 2026 (1) SA 449 (SCA) (17 October 2025) has brought welcome clarity to the long‑standing question of whether the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act) limits the jurisdiction of the High Court.

Hurt feelings ≠ Constructive dismissal

Hurt feelings ≠ Constructive dismissal

Constructive dismissal was incorporated into South African labour law in the 1980s and later codified in the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“LRA”). In terms of section 186(1)(e) of the LRA, an employee may resign, whether with or without notice, and claim unfair dismissal on the basis that their continued employment had become intolerable. Although the concept can be difficult to apply in practice, the Constitutional Court has clarified its meaning and reaffirmed its role within our law.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest