In many cases, employers must deal with employees filing false complaints against their co-workers to intimidate or retaliate.
There are some employers who are too cautious about taking disciplinary steps because they think they will end up penalizing their employees.
As per section 187(1)(d) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA), a dismissal on the grounds that an employee is either acting against the employer or intends to act against the employer constitutes unfair dismissal.
Case Law:
In the case of DBT Technologies (Pty) Ltd v Garnevska (JA612018) [2020] ZALAC 26, it was also established that lodging a grievance is not the same as exercising a right conferred by law and would therefore not qualify as an automatic unfair dismissal.
During her five-year tenure with her employer, the employee claimed that her co-worker had assaulted her. She also reported the incident to the SAPD.
Upon investigating the allegations with a specific inquiry, it became evident that the allegations were unfounded.
As a result, she was charged with gross dishonesty and subsequently dismissed.
She filed a complaint with the CCMA and, after it failed to resolve the dispute, filed a report with the Labour Court under section 191(5)(b), since she believed her dismissal was automatically unfair.
The Labour Court determined that her dismissal was directly related to her grievance and not to her dishonesty.
In addition, it found that her dismissal was the consequence of her exercising a right conferred by the LRA against the employer. This resulted in compensation for the former employee.
Appeal to the Labour Appeal Court
The employer who was aggrieved by this finding – took the Labour Court judgement on appeal to the Labour Appeal Court.
To establish that a dismissal was unfair, the Labour Appeal Court ruled that an inquiry into causation must be conducted in order to establish that the dismissal was caused by one of the grounds listed in section 187(1) of the LRA.
The employee must demonstrate that he or she exercised a right under the LRA by acting or intending to act against the employer, as set out in section 187(1)(d) of the LRA.
The employee had to take action against the employer in order to establish factual causation.
In that case, the dismissal is not necessarily unfair, whereas in the lack of a dismissal, it is not necessarily unfair.
It is imperative to establish legal causation in order to determine that the reason was the main, proximate, or dominant cause.
According to the court, there was no indication that the applicant attempted to pursue a grievance against the company at the time of dismissal.
Accordingly, the right to file a grievance is not conferred by the LRA, as the legislation makes no reference to grievance mechanisms in the workplace.
The contract between the parties specifies the right to file a grievance.
As this case demonstrates, employers are not precluded from disciplining employees for dishonesty for the simple reason that they have lodged a grievance. The employer may discipline employee if the allegations contained therein are dishonest or misleading.
