, MRL3702 Assignment 1 Semester 1 2026 - DUE 12 March 2026; 100%
CORRECT AND TRUSTED SOLUTIONS
LEGAL OPINION
Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and Others (JR546/2023) [2025]
ZALCJHB 572 (3 December 2025)
Introduction
The Labour Court’s judgment in Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and
Others addresses one of the most recurrent themes in employment
law: the fairness and consistency of disciplinary measures taken by
employers in the workplace. The case highlights the interplay between
substantive fairness and employer discretion in sanctioning employee
misconduct, and provides critical guidance on how consistency in
disciplinary action impacts the fairness of dismissals under the Labour
Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA).¹ This legal opinion examines the
judgment’s background, issues in dispute, evidence presented,
applicable legal framework, reasoning of the court, and the ultimate
decision.
I. Summary of Facts
Cashbuild SA Ltd (“Cashbuild”), a national retailer of building materials
and hardware, employed Ms Lorraine Tsiri (“the third respondent”) as a
system supervisor at one of its stores.² In July 2022, Ms Tsiri authorised
a petty cash payment of R 2 847.14 instead of the correct amount of R
2 482.00, resulting in a cash shortage of R 365.14.³ Her conduct was
treated as gross negligence by Cashbuild’s disciplinary committee. At
CORRECT AND TRUSTED SOLUTIONS
LEGAL OPINION
Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and Others (JR546/2023) [2025]
ZALCJHB 572 (3 December 2025)
Introduction
The Labour Court’s judgment in Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and
Others addresses one of the most recurrent themes in employment
law: the fairness and consistency of disciplinary measures taken by
employers in the workplace. The case highlights the interplay between
substantive fairness and employer discretion in sanctioning employee
misconduct, and provides critical guidance on how consistency in
disciplinary action impacts the fairness of dismissals under the Labour
Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA).¹ This legal opinion examines the
judgment’s background, issues in dispute, evidence presented,
applicable legal framework, reasoning of the court, and the ultimate
decision.
I. Summary of Facts
Cashbuild SA Ltd (“Cashbuild”), a national retailer of building materials
and hardware, employed Ms Lorraine Tsiri (“the third respondent”) as a
system supervisor at one of its stores.² In July 2022, Ms Tsiri authorised
a petty cash payment of R 2 847.14 instead of the correct amount of R
2 482.00, resulting in a cash shortage of R 365.14.³ Her conduct was
treated as gross negligence by Cashbuild’s disciplinary committee. At
