A Cautious Approach Towards the Application of Team Misconduct - South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union v Makgopela (2023) 44 ILJ 1229 (LAC)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2025/v28i0a16360Keywords:
Shrikages, Dismissal, Team Misconduct, Employer, employee, retail sectorAbstract
The reality faced by the labour market is that employees are prone to committing acts of misconduct from time to time at the workplace. In case of an unexplained stock loss at the workplace however, it becomes difficult for the employer to show on a balance of probabilities that each individual employee was involved in the commission of the offence, before disciplinary action can be validly taken. Consequently, the concept of team misconduct was introduced to deal with the generic dilemma which confronts an employer who has clear evidence of stock loss but is unable to identify the perpetrators of misconduct. The evidential difficulty posed by dismissal for misconduct in circumstances where the primary misconduct has been committed by a group of employees has disseminated the concept of team misconduct.
In light of the above mentioned, the recent Labour Appeal Court in SACCAWU v Makgopela has contributed to the elucidation of the notion of team misconduct in the workplace. The court maintained that guilty by association has no place in our law. For an employer to safely rely on team misconduct a factual basis must be established to infer that all employees were indivisibly culpable as members of the team for failing to ensure compliance with the employer's rule.
Accordingly, the Labour Appeal Court can be lauded for precisely evaluating the evidence presented and all relevant factors which exonerated the applicants from team misconduct . This case note calls for a critical analysis of the impact of shrinkage in the retail sector, application of team misconduct, practical methods for securing evidence in team misconduct cases as well as the cautionary approach adopted by Savage AJA in the Labour Appeal Court judgement.
Downloads
References
Bibliography
Literature
Coetzer N "Substance Over Form: The Importance of Disciplinary Charges in Determining the Fairness of a Dismissal for Misconduct" 2013 ILJ 57-72
Cohen T "Collective Dismissal: A Step towards Combating Shrinkage at the Workplace" 2003 SA Merc LJ 16-26
Du Plessis JV A Practical Guide to Labour Law 6th ed (LexisNexis Butterworths Durban 2006)
Grogan J "To Catch a Thief: Entrapment in the Workplace" 2001 Employment Law 8-9
Grogan J Workplace Law 11th ed (Juta Cape Town 2016)
Le Roux PAK "Group Misconduct: When Will Dismissal Be a Fair Remedy for Employers?" 2011 CLL 101-109
Maqutu L "Collective Misconduct in the Workplace: Is Team Misconduct, Collective Misconduct in Disguise?" 2014 Stell LR 566-578
Poppesqou T "The Sounds of Silence: The Evolution of the Concept of Derivative Misconduct and the Role of Inferences" 2018 ILJ 34-50
Schwikkard PJ and Van der Merwe SE Principles of Evidence 4th ed (Juta Cape Town 2016)
Tenza M "Is the Use of Video Footage during Industrial Action a Solution to Liability for Collective Misconduct? Part 1" 2017 Obiter 242-260
Case law
Cape Town City Council v South African Municipal Workers Union (C367/98) [2000] ZALC 106 (22 September 2000)
Chauke v Lee Service Centre t/a Leeson Motors 1998 19 ILJ 1441 (LAC)
EAWTUSA v The Production Casting Co (Pty) Ltd 1988 9 ILJ 702 (IC)
FAWU v ABI 1994 15 ILJ 1057 (LAC)
FEDCRAW v Snip Trading (Pty) Ltd 2001 7 BALR 669 (P)
Foschini Group v Maidi 2010 7 BLLR 689 (LAC)
Maluleke v Cashbuild Orange Farm 2012 1 BALR 50 (CCMA)
Mbuli v Spartan Wiremakers CC 2004 5 ILJ 1128 (BCA) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6210(04)00118-3
NEHAWU v UCT 2003 2 BCLR 154 (CC)
Nottingham City Council v Amin (2000) 1 WLR 1071
NSCAWU v Coin Security Group (Pty) Ltd t/a Coin Security 1997 1 BLLR 85 (IC)
NUM v Durban Roodepoort Deep Ltd 1987 8 ILJ 156 (IC) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-9382(87)90094-1
NUMSA obo Khanyile Nganezi v Dunlop Mixing Services (Pty) Ltd 2019 8 BCLR 966 (CC)
S v Baleka (January 2005, CLL 14(6) 57)
S v Dube 2000 1 SACR 53 (N) DOI: https://doi.org/10.5642/hmnj.200001.22.11
S v Pistorius (CC113/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 793 (12 September 2014) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro3386
SA Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union v Pep Stores 1998 19 ILJ 1226 (LC)
SACCAWU v Cashbuild Ltd 1996 4 BLLR 457 (IC)
SACCAWU v Pep Stores 1998 6 BALR 719 (CCMA)
SACTU obo Motaung v Pep Stores 2001 8 BALR 905 (CCMA)
SAGAWU obo Mdiya v Pep Stores (Pty) Ltd 2003 10 BALR 1172 (CCMA)
SAMWU obo Abrahams v City of Cape Town 2011 11 BLLR 1106 (LC)
SATAWU obo Assagai v Autopax 2001 22 ILJ 2773 (BCA)
South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union v Makgopela 2023 44 ILJ 1229 (LAC)
Western Platinum Refinery Ltd v Hlebela 2015 ILJ 2280 (LAC)
Woolworths v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration 2011 32 ILJ 2455 (LAC)
Legislation
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
Internet sources
Keenan M 2022 What Is Retail Shrinkage? Tips and Strategies https://www.shopify.com/za/retail/retail-shrinkage accessed 18 April 2023
Lazarus W 2021 Admissibility of Video Evidence in an Arbitration https://ceosa.org.za/admissability-of-video-evidence-in-an-arbitration accessed 18 April 2023
National Retail Federation 2020 National Retail Security Survey https://cdn.nrf.com/sites/default/files/2020-07/RS-105905_2020_NationalRetailSecuritySurvey.pdf accessed 23 July 2023
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Scelo Sibiya

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.