Good everyone and welcome back to another discussion. In our What if series.
We will bring you insights in the format of a what if question on the ever evolving landscape of employment law. I'm Ross Simon from Maserumule Corporate Employment Law.
And in today's discussion we're unpacking what if your supervisor orders you to engage in dishonest conduct.
To answer this, we look at the Labour Court's judgement in Mbuyane v Dekker NO and others.
The employee in this case worked as a treasury custodian at Standard Bank.
His role, together with the supervisor, was to receive cash deliveries and prepare balance sheets reflecting the actual amounts received.
In October 2019, he discovered a shortfall in a bag of coins and reported to his supervisor.
Instead of addressing the shortfall properly, he supervisor instructed him to record the full amount ordered, not the amount actually received, essentially covering up the discrepancy. The employee followed this instruction and knowingly submitted false balance sheets. When Standard Bank's risk team conducted a surprise inspection, they uncovered the falsification along with further shortfalls.
Both the supervisor and the employee were dismissed for dishonesty. The employee was charged specifically with knowingly submitting a false balanced position from 21 to 22 October 2019, discovered during a surprise check on 23 October 2019.
In plain terms, he was dismissed for deliberately misrepresenting the bank's cash position. The employee advanced several defences, but each was rejected. He argued he was simply carrying out his supervisor's instruction. The court firmly held that employees have a positive duty not to comply with unlawful orders. The fact that his supervisor was also dismissed confirmed that the instruction itself was improper. He claimed he wasn't properly trained as a treasury custodian.
The court found this irrelevant and how that honesty in record keeping is a universal requirement, not dependent on specialized training. He suggested there was a practice of holding back short bags until replacement. Even if true, the court said, this could never justify falsifying records.
The misconduct lay in dishonest reporting, not in flawed procedures. And finally, he claimed that without fraud, dismissal was too harsh. The court disagreed. And how that dishonesty alone, especially in banking, is sufficient to destroy trust and justify dismissal.
The Labour Court confirmed that the commissioner's findings were reasonable. The employer clearly engaged in misconduct by knowingly submitting false records. In banking, trust and integrity are non negotiable. By acting dishonestly, the employee breached their trust. While a lesser penalty might have been possible, the court found that dismissal still fell within the band of reasonableness. Importantly, the court stressed that if the employee felt pressured by a supervisor, his duty was not to comply with instruction but to escalate the matter through the proper channels.
This judgement reinforces some vital workplace principles. Just following orders is not a defence. Employees are expected to refuse unlawful instructions. Trust is everything. Even dishonesty that falls short of fraud undermines the foundation of the employment relationship. Whistle blowing protections matter. Employees should create safe reporting channels for staff facing unethical directives. Integrity comes first. Employees must choose lawful and ethical conduct over blind obedience.
The key take away? Colleagues, integrity cannot be compromised, not even under pressure from a supervisor. That brings us to the end of this week's discussion. Thank you for joining us. I hope you find it informative. If you have any questions or comments, we'd love to hear from you. You can find us on social media or you can e-mail me directly at ross@masconsulting.co.za. Until next time, bye bye.
