MRL3702
Assignment 1 (Semester 1)
DUE 12 MARCH 2026
VARIOUS ANSWERS PROVIDED
Legal Opinion: Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and Others (JR546/2023) [2025]
ZALCJHB 572
Summary of Facts
In July 2022, the third respondent, Ms Lorraine Tsiri, employed by Cashbuild SA Ltd as a
System Supervisor, authorised an incorrect petty cash payment of R2 847.14 instead of
R2 482.00, causing a shortage of R365.14. At the time, she had a final written warning
for a prior similar shortage. Cashbuild regarded this as gross negligence and dismissed
her. Ms Tsiri referred the matter to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and
Arbitration (CCMA), arguing that her dismissal was substantively unfair because other
employees who made comparable petty cash errors were allowed to repay the shortfall
instead of being dismissed (Cashbuild v Mamogale, 2025).
The arbitrator accepted this inconsistency argument and ordered her reinstatement.
Cashbuild then brought a review application in the Labour Court to set aside the
arbitration award (Cashbuild v Mamogale, 2025).
Issue(s) in Dispute
The main 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
Disclaimer:
All materials are for study assistance only. We do not condone academic dishonesty. Use at your own risk.
We are not liable for any consequences arising from misuse.
Redistribution, resale, or sharing without permission is prohibited.
Assignment 1 (Semester 1)
DUE 12 MARCH 2026
VARIOUS ANSWERS PROVIDED
Legal Opinion: Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and Others (JR546/2023) [2025]
ZALCJHB 572
Summary of Facts
In July 2022, the third respondent, Ms Lorraine Tsiri, employed by Cashbuild SA Ltd as a
System Supervisor, authorised an incorrect petty cash payment of R2 847.14 instead of
R2 482.00, causing a shortage of R365.14. At the time, she had a final written warning
for a prior similar shortage. Cashbuild regarded this as gross negligence and dismissed
her. Ms Tsiri referred the matter to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and
Arbitration (CCMA), arguing that her dismissal was substantively unfair because other
employees who made comparable petty cash errors were allowed to repay the shortfall
instead of being dismissed (Cashbuild v Mamogale, 2025).
The arbitrator accepted this inconsistency argument and ordered her reinstatement.
Cashbuild then brought a review application in the Labour Court to set aside the
arbitration award (Cashbuild v Mamogale, 2025).
Issue(s) in Dispute
The main 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
Disclaimer:
All materials are for study assistance only. We do not condone academic dishonesty. Use at your own risk.
We are not liable for any consequences arising from misuse.
Redistribution, resale, or sharing without permission is prohibited.
