, MRL3702 Assignment 1 Semester 1 2026 - DUE 2026
Multiple choice
Legal Opinion: Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O. and Others
(Labour Court, Case No. JR546/2023, 3 December 2025)
1. Summary of Facts
The applicant, Cashbuild SA Ltd, dismissed its employee, Ms Lorraine
Tsiri (third respondent) for a cash shortage error amounting to R2 847.14,
which she had authorised out of petty cash instead of the correct amount of
R2 482.00. Prior to this incident, Ms Tsiri had received a final written
warning for a similar error, and Cashbuild’s disciplinary code sanctioned
the dismissal of an employee found guilty of gross negligence where a final
written warning was already operative. Ms Tsiri challenged her dismissal at
the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA),
alleging that Cashbuild had inconsistently applied disciplinary
measures for similar offences committed by other employees. The
arbitrator (first respondent) agreed, found the dismissal substantively unfair
and ordered reinstatement. Cashbuild then sought to review and set aside
this award, claiming the arbitrator’s decision was unreasonable and flawed.
2. Legal Issues in Dispute
The principal issues before the Labour Court were:
a. Whether the arbitrator’s finding of inconsistent application of
discipline was reasonable:
Did Ms Tsiri present credible evidence that other employees were treated
more leniently for similar cash shortages, thereby rendering her dismissal
unfair?
b. Whether the arbitrator properly applied the legal test for
inconsistency:
Multiple choice
Legal Opinion: Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O. and Others
(Labour Court, Case No. JR546/2023, 3 December 2025)
1. Summary of Facts
The applicant, Cashbuild SA Ltd, dismissed its employee, Ms Lorraine
Tsiri (third respondent) for a cash shortage error amounting to R2 847.14,
which she had authorised out of petty cash instead of the correct amount of
R2 482.00. Prior to this incident, Ms Tsiri had received a final written
warning for a similar error, and Cashbuild’s disciplinary code sanctioned
the dismissal of an employee found guilty of gross negligence where a final
written warning was already operative. Ms Tsiri challenged her dismissal at
the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA),
alleging that Cashbuild had inconsistently applied disciplinary
measures for similar offences committed by other employees. The
arbitrator (first respondent) agreed, found the dismissal substantively unfair
and ordered reinstatement. Cashbuild then sought to review and set aside
this award, claiming the arbitrator’s decision was unreasonable and flawed.
2. Legal Issues in Dispute
The principal issues before the Labour Court were:
a. Whether the arbitrator’s finding of inconsistent application of
discipline was reasonable:
Did Ms Tsiri present credible evidence that other employees were treated
more leniently for similar cash shortages, thereby rendering her dismissal
unfair?
b. Whether the arbitrator properly applied the legal test for
inconsistency:
