Lawson v Standard Bank SA Limited (GAJB 28802/23) [2024] ZACCMA 1 (9 June 2024)

Key Facts

Issues

• The arbitrator was required to determine if the Employee violated the Employer's Code of Ethics and Conduct as well as its Harassment Policy.
• The issue centered on whether the Employee's conduct led to psychological and emotional harm for her subordinates.
• Assessed whether the Employee's management style fostered a hostile and stressful work environment for employees.
• Determined the fairness of the Employee's disciplinary dismissal based on the evidence presented.
• Investigated whether the Employee's management style directly resulted in the departure of skilled team members.
• Examined if the Employee's leadership led to employees adopting conduct detrimental to the Employer and posed risks.
• Determined if the Employee publicly disciplined subordinates through shouting or intimidating behavior.
• Evaluated the fairness of the Employer's internal investigation and its reliance on employee allegations.
• Assessed if the Employee's performance evaluations aligned with the Employer's claims of harassment.

Holdings

• The Employee's management style was not established as the cause of staff turnover or detrimental behavior. The investigation conducted by the Employer was found to be flawed and not objective.
• The dismissal was awarded as substantively unfair, and compensation equal to nine months' remuneration (R 1,698,120.00) was granted to the Employee. The Employer was directed to pay the compensation by 30 June 2024.
• The Employer failed to discharge the onus that the Employee committed misconduct. The arbitrator found no evidence of harassment or bullying by the Employee and concluded that the dismissal was not substantively fair.

Remedies

Monetary Damages

Legal Principles

• The arbitrator applied the purposive approach in interpreting the Employer's Harassment Policy and Code of Ethics, emphasizing objective standards for harassment and bullying. The analysis focused on whether the Employer's actions aligned with the policy's intent to prevent hostile work environments.
• The Employer failed to discharge the onus that the Employee committed misconduct and that her dismissal was fair, as required by section 192 of the Labour Relations Act (LRA). The arbitrator applied the balance of probabilities standard and found the Employer's evidence insufficient.

Precedent Name

• Centre for Autism Research and Education CC v CCMA and Others
• Performing Arts Council of Free State v CCMA and others
• Makuleni v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd

Cited Statute

Judge Name

Passage Text

• I find that the manner in which the Investigation was conducted could not have been fair and objective. Accordingly, as I was called upon in terms of the pre-arbitration minute, I find that the Investigator failed to objectively and properly investigate the allegations made by Ms. Carol Sithole in her resignation letter and had relied solely on the subjective allegations made by some employees, not all, which 'themes' as to a lack of any objective evidence of harassment perpetrated by the Employee, is further unpacked hereunder.
• I have applied my mind to the totality of evidence and argument before me and, based on such, I am not persuaded that the misconduct was indeed committed and, accordingly, it follows that there was no breach of the relevant Policies, and accordingly, dismissal was not the appropriate sanction.
• I find the dismissal of the Employees to be substantively unfair and, accordingly, award compensation in an amount equal to nine months' remuneration (R 1 698 120-00) – one million, six hundred and ninety-eight thousand, one hundred and twenty Rand.