MRL3702
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 1 2026
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 12 MARCH 2026
, Labour Law - MRL3702
LEGAL OPINION
Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and Others (JR546/2023) [2025] ZALCJHB 572
1. Summary of the Facts of the Case
Cashbuild SA Ltd dismissed its employee, Ms Lorraine Tsiri, after she authorised an
incorrect petty cash payment on 8 July 2022, resulting in a cash shortage of R365.14.
Ms Tsiri admitted that the shortage resulted from an error on her part. At the time of her
dismissal, Ms Tsiri was already subject to a final written warning for a similar offence,
and Cashbuild’s disciplinary code provided for dismissal in cases of repeated
misconduct of this nature.
Ms Tsiri referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA, contending that her dismissal
was substantively unfair due to inconsistent application of discipline. She alleged that
other employees who had committed similar cash shortages were not disciplined but
were allowed to reimburse the shortages informally. The commissioner agreed with Ms
Tsiri and ordered her reinstatement. Cashbuild then brought a review application to the
Labour Court, challenging the commissioner’s award.
2. Issue(s) in Dispute
The primary issue before the Labour Court was whether the commissioner acted
unreasonably in finding that Cashbuild had applied discipline inconsistently, thereby
rendering Ms Tsiri’s dismissal substantively unfair.
3. The Court’s Decision
The Labour Court dismissed Cashbuild’s review application. It held that the
commissioner’s finding of inconsistent discipline was reasonable and that Ms Tsiri’s
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 1 2026
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 12 MARCH 2026
, Labour Law - MRL3702
LEGAL OPINION
Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and Others (JR546/2023) [2025] ZALCJHB 572
1. Summary of the Facts of the Case
Cashbuild SA Ltd dismissed its employee, Ms Lorraine Tsiri, after she authorised an
incorrect petty cash payment on 8 July 2022, resulting in a cash shortage of R365.14.
Ms Tsiri admitted that the shortage resulted from an error on her part. At the time of her
dismissal, Ms Tsiri was already subject to a final written warning for a similar offence,
and Cashbuild’s disciplinary code provided for dismissal in cases of repeated
misconduct of this nature.
Ms Tsiri referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA, contending that her dismissal
was substantively unfair due to inconsistent application of discipline. She alleged that
other employees who had committed similar cash shortages were not disciplined but
were allowed to reimburse the shortages informally. The commissioner agreed with Ms
Tsiri and ordered her reinstatement. Cashbuild then brought a review application to the
Labour Court, challenging the commissioner’s award.
2. Issue(s) in Dispute
The primary issue before the Labour Court was whether the commissioner acted
unreasonably in finding that Cashbuild had applied discipline inconsistently, thereby
rendering Ms Tsiri’s dismissal substantively unfair.
3. The Court’s Decision
The Labour Court dismissed Cashbuild’s review application. It held that the
commissioner’s finding of inconsistent discipline was reasonable and that Ms Tsiri’s
