, LEGAL OPINION: CASHBUILD SA LTD V MAMOGALE N.O AND OTHERS (JR546/2023) [2025]
ZALCJHB 572
1. Introduction
This opinion examines the Labour Court judgment in Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and Others
(JR546/2023) [2025] ZALCJHB 572, delivered on 3 December 2025 by Allen-Yaman J. The matter
concerned a review application brought by Cashbuild against an arbitration award issued under the
auspices of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), in which the
dismissal of Ms Lorraine Tsiri was found to be substantively unfair and reinstatement was ordered
(Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale NO and Others (2025) ZALCJHB 572 at para 1).
This opinion analyses the factual background, the legal principles applicable to review proceedings
and disciplinary consistency, the Labour Court’s reasoning, and the significance of the judgment for
labour-law jurisprudence. Reference is also made to the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA),
Sidumo and Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd 2008 (2) SA 24 (CC), and National Union of
Mineworkers obo Botsane v Anglo Platinum Mine (Rustenburg Section) (2014) 35 ILJ 2406 (LAC).
2. Factual Background
Ms Tsiri was employed as a system supervisor by Cashbuild. On 8 July 2022 she authorised payment
from petty cash in the amount of R2 847.14 instead of R2 482.00. This was characterised by the
employer as gross negligence. Given that Ms Tsiri had previously received a final written warning
for similar misconduct, the chairperson of the disciplinary enquiry imposed dismissal in accordance
with Cashbuild’s disciplinary code (Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale NO and Others (2025) ZALCJHB
572 at para 2).
At arbitration, Ms Tsiri challenged the substantive fairness of her dismissal on the basis of
inconsistency, alleging that two colleagues, Ms Sarah Mogale and Ms Elizabeth Ramango, had
committed comparable cash-handling errors but were merely allowed to repay shortages instead
of being disciplined. The commissioner accepted this argument and ordered reinstatement
(Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale NO and Others (2025) ZALCJHB 572 at paras 3 and 18).
Cashbuild sought to review the award, contending that the commissioner had relied on shifting
comparators, accepted unsupported evidence, misapplied the test for inconsistency, and ignored
the operative final written warning. It further alleged that the commissioner had restricted the
evidence it was allowed to present (Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale NO and Others (2025) ZALCJHB
572 at paras 4–5).
ZALCJHB 572
1. Introduction
This opinion examines the Labour Court judgment in Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and Others
(JR546/2023) [2025] ZALCJHB 572, delivered on 3 December 2025 by Allen-Yaman J. The matter
concerned a review application brought by Cashbuild against an arbitration award issued under the
auspices of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), in which the
dismissal of Ms Lorraine Tsiri was found to be substantively unfair and reinstatement was ordered
(Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale NO and Others (2025) ZALCJHB 572 at para 1).
This opinion analyses the factual background, the legal principles applicable to review proceedings
and disciplinary consistency, the Labour Court’s reasoning, and the significance of the judgment for
labour-law jurisprudence. Reference is also made to the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA),
Sidumo and Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd 2008 (2) SA 24 (CC), and National Union of
Mineworkers obo Botsane v Anglo Platinum Mine (Rustenburg Section) (2014) 35 ILJ 2406 (LAC).
2. Factual Background
Ms Tsiri was employed as a system supervisor by Cashbuild. On 8 July 2022 she authorised payment
from petty cash in the amount of R2 847.14 instead of R2 482.00. This was characterised by the
employer as gross negligence. Given that Ms Tsiri had previously received a final written warning
for similar misconduct, the chairperson of the disciplinary enquiry imposed dismissal in accordance
with Cashbuild’s disciplinary code (Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale NO and Others (2025) ZALCJHB
572 at para 2).
At arbitration, Ms Tsiri challenged the substantive fairness of her dismissal on the basis of
inconsistency, alleging that two colleagues, Ms Sarah Mogale and Ms Elizabeth Ramango, had
committed comparable cash-handling errors but were merely allowed to repay shortages instead
of being disciplined. The commissioner accepted this argument and ordered reinstatement
(Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale NO and Others (2025) ZALCJHB 572 at paras 3 and 18).
Cashbuild sought to review the award, contending that the commissioner had relied on shifting
comparators, accepted unsupported evidence, misapplied the test for inconsistency, and ignored
the operative final written warning. It further alleged that the commissioner had restricted the
evidence it was allowed to present (Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale NO and Others (2025) ZALCJHB
572 at paras 4–5).
