This concept may sound like an obvious statement to many. However, employers still overlook this when implementing discipline in the workplace. For that reason, this article aims to detail the pitfalls of not consistently applying discipline in the workplace.
Firstly, the following steps are critical to achieve consistency in the workplace:
- Establish and implement a clear disciplinary code in the workplace ensuring all staff understand and are aware of the code;
- Ensure adherence to the disciplinary code as far as is reasonably possible and that the code is applied consistently amongst staff, i.e. all employees should be issued with the same outcome or sanction when committing the same or similar offence.
In saying this, there is some leeway in certain instances, which is why an employer must carefully determine the mitigating and aggravating factors when considering an appropriate sanction. These factors include how long an employee is working for a company, whether the employee has previous related incidents on record, the nature of the offence and its impact on the business etc.
In the case of SACCAWU v SUN CITY (2018) 39 ILJ 436 (LC), “the court found that employees who acted wrongfully and are dismissed should not escape their punishment merely on the basis that others have done the same and were not dismissed.” This case gives an employer hope that should they not follow consistency in the workplace in certain instances; they may be able to justify their actions provided the circumstances allow for it.
However, the above is for limited cases, and ultimately being consistent in the workplace is vitally important as the absence of it exposes the employer to certain dangers and pitfalls. One such pitfall that is often experienced is when the employer is faced with the reinstatement or compensation for staff after dismissing an employee for an offence where another employee had committed the same offence but was not subject to the same punishment. In CAPE TOWN CITY COUNCIL v MASHITO (2000) 21 ILJ 1957 (LAC), it was held “the Employer is required by considerations of fairness to act consistently in the application and enforcement of its disciplinary rules and management policies designed to instil discipline”.
An example of the above comes to mind, which I have experienced in practice, with one such employer, of company A. In this case, employee X had been dismissed for theft and, after that, referred his dismissal to CCMA, where the commissioner ordered that he be reinstated with back pay. The basis of this award was due to it being established that employee Y had also been found guilty of theft in the workplace and was not dismissed. This resulted in a very negative impact on the employer’s business and the respect amongst staff for the rules in the workplace, which took a significant amount of time to rectify.
In conclusion, consistency when implementing rules and regulations should not be overlooked and should be considered as an integral component of workplace discipline.
Should you have any queries about discipline in the workplace, do not hesitate to contact your nearest SEESA Labour Legal Advisor. Alternatively, leave your details on our website, and a SEESA representative will contact you.
About The Author:
Simone Abrahams started her career at SEESA in 2013. She is currently a Labour Legal Advisor at the SEESA Durban branch. She was admitted as an Attorney in 2010.
Resources:
- Danshaw consulting- “Workplace discipline and the importance of its consistent application”- article dated 30/01/22