MRL3702
ASSIGNMENT 1 (SEMESTER 1)
DUE 12 MARCH 2026
MULTIPLE ANSWERS PROVIDED .
Legal Opinion: Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and Others (JR546/2023) [2025]
ZALCJHB 572
Summary of Facts
In July 2022, Ms Lorraine Tsiri was employed by Cashbuild SA Ltd as a System
Supervisor. She mistakenly approved a petty cash payment of R2 847.14 instead of
R2 482.00, resulting in a shortage of R365.14. At the time, she had an existing final
written warning for a previous petty cash shortage. Cashbuild treated the error as
gross negligence and dismissed her employment (Cashbuild v Mamogale, 2025).
Ms Tsiri referred the dismissal to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and
Arbitration (CCMA), alleging substantive unfairness on the basis that similarly
situated employees were treated more leniently for comparable petty cash errors by
being allowed to repay the shortage instead of being disciplined (Cashbuild v
Mamogale, 2025). The arbitrator accepted her argument of inconsistent discipline and
ordered her reinstatement. Cashbuild sought review of the arbitration award in the
Labour Court (Cashbuild v Mamogale, 2025).
Issue(s) in Dispute
The central issue before the Labour Court was whether the CCMA commissioner’s
finding that Ms Tsiri’s dismissal was substantively unfair due to inconsistent
application of disciplinary measures was a decision that a reasonable
decision-maker could reach (Cashbuild v Mamogale, 2025). Cashbuild contended that
the commissioner erred in law by failing to apply the correct legal test for inconsistency,
ASSIGNMENT 1 (SEMESTER 1)
DUE 12 MARCH 2026
MULTIPLE ANSWERS PROVIDED .
Legal Opinion: Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and Others (JR546/2023) [2025]
ZALCJHB 572
Summary of Facts
In July 2022, Ms Lorraine Tsiri was employed by Cashbuild SA Ltd as a System
Supervisor. She mistakenly approved a petty cash payment of R2 847.14 instead of
R2 482.00, resulting in a shortage of R365.14. At the time, she had an existing final
written warning for a previous petty cash shortage. Cashbuild treated the error as
gross negligence and dismissed her employment (Cashbuild v Mamogale, 2025).
Ms Tsiri referred the dismissal to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and
Arbitration (CCMA), alleging substantive unfairness on the basis that similarly
situated employees were treated more leniently for comparable petty cash errors by
being allowed to repay the shortage instead of being disciplined (Cashbuild v
Mamogale, 2025). The arbitrator accepted her argument of inconsistent discipline and
ordered her reinstatement. Cashbuild sought review of the arbitration award in the
Labour Court (Cashbuild v Mamogale, 2025).
Issue(s) in Dispute
The central issue before the Labour Court was whether the CCMA commissioner’s
finding that Ms Tsiri’s dismissal was substantively unfair due to inconsistent
application of disciplinary measures was a decision that a reasonable
decision-maker could reach (Cashbuild v Mamogale, 2025). Cashbuild contended that
the commissioner erred in law by failing to apply the correct legal test for inconsistency,
