By Ivan Israelstam, Chief Executive of Labour Law Management Consulting
Contact: (011) 888-7944 / 0828522973 | Email: ivan@labourlawadvice.co.za
Employers are entitled to require employees not to make false allegations against the employer. This is because such false allegations can tarnish the employer’s reputation, damage employee relations and require costly and/or time-consuming efforts in trying to set the record straight.
However, even where an employee makes such a false allegation this does not automatically justify the sanction of dismissal. The employer would still have to prove that the employee’s conduct was so gross as to make continued employment intolerable.
It is not sufficient for the employer to prove that the employee made a false allegation. The employer must prove that the making of that false allegation actually resulted in the tarnishing of the employer’s reputation. That is, if an employee falsely reports to some regulatory authority that the employer had breached a law, this might or might not result in the sullying of the employer’s reputation.
If the employee’s false report gets into the media and succeeds in convincing observers that the employer is non-compliant, then it can be said that the employer’s reputation has been tarnished. However, what if there was a false report but it was not publicised and the relevant government authorities ultimately accepted that the report was false? It such cases there would be no reputational damage. Or what if there is no proof that the report was false? A dismissal for reputational damage would, in such cases, clearly be invalid and unfair.
In the case of Sandton Mining vs Mashego (Lex Info 7 May 2025. Labour Court case number JR 760/21) It was proved that Mashego made a report to the police to the effect that the employer had not been complying with Covid safety regulations.
At arbitration the employer failed to satisfy the commissioner that it had indeed complies with the Covid regulations. As such, Mashego’s report to the police was not proven to have been false. The commissioner therefore ordered Mashego’s reinstatement, and the Labour Court upheld this decision.
It appears that here the employer submitted oral testimony claiming that it had complied with the Covid regulations, but that this evidence failed to constitute proof because it had not been sufficiently backed up with other independent evidence.
The outcome of this case shows that too many employers know neither the difference between evidence and proof nor the very exacting standards required for submissions to constitute proof. Employers therefore need to train their managers in what constitutes proof and in how to present it in a convincing manner.
The innovative video series WALKING THE LABOUR LAW TIGHTROPE assists employers to provide their managers with very inexpensive training that allows the managers to achieve labour law knowhow at times suitable to their very busy schedules. Its 48 chapters, averaging 10 minutes in length each, can easily be watched at junctures when the manager has time. This greatly informative yet very engaging and practical video series provides crucial and user-friendly learning through the use of a stimulating, animated case study that runs throughout the 48-chapter series. Each chapter contains clear and important advice needed by workplace management on the basics of labour law over a very wide range of topics.
A further advantage is that the manager can, for a full year, easily go back to any of the 48 videos for purposes of refresher training or in order to access information on how to deal with a current workplace issue. This solves the problem of managers forgetting what they have learned.
This video series helps management to walk the shaky labour law tightrope and to run the workplace productively without falling into the labour law abyss.
To access our groundbreaking video series: WALKING THE NEW LABOUR LAW TIGHTROPE please go to www.labourlawvideos.co.za or contact Ivan on ivan@labourlawadvice.co.za
