Two CCMA cases, opposite outcomes: why the investigation decides
6 min read
Here are two real South African dismissals, both decided at the CCMA, both involving a senior employee accused of bullying subordinates. One employer lost and was ordered to pay about R1.7 million. The other won outright and paid nothing.
The allegations were strikingly similar. The outcomes could not have been more different. What separated them was not the seriousness of the conduct — it was whether the employer could prove it through a fair, thorough investigation.
The employer that paid R1.7 million
In Lawson v Standard Bank SA Ltd [2024] ZACCMA 1, a senior compliance executive was dismissed for alleged gross misconduct — that she had failed to maintain a psychologically safe environment for her team and had created a hostile, distressing atmosphere.
At arbitration, the commissioner found the bank had failed to discharge the onus of proving the misconduct on a balance of probabilities. Three things sank the case:
- The commissioner was not persuaded the conduct had actually occurred.
- No formal grievances had ever been lodged against the employee before she was dismissed.
- The internal investigation was found to be flawed, biased and subjective — it did not genuinely test the allegations.
Because the misconduct was not proven, dismissal could not be a fair sanction, and the dismissal was substantively unfair. Taking into account nine years' service, a clean record and strong performance reviews, the commissioner awarded nine months' remuneration — R1 698 120.00.
The employer that won
In FA v University of the Witwatersrand [2022] ZACCMA 6, the head of an academic school was dismissed after an internal enquiry into complaints gathered over 2016–2017. The enquiry panel found, on a balance of probabilities, that he had engaged in systemic gender-based bullying of seven complainants.
At the CCMA he asked to be reinstated, or alternatively for twelve months' compensation. He got neither. The commissioner found him guilty of the allegations and held that his conduct had so damaged workplace relationships that the trust relationship was destroyed and he was no longer fit to continue. Crucially, the dismissal was found to be both substantively and procedurally fair: there had been a proper investigation, an enquiry panel, and an appeal stage. The relief was refused and the case dismissed.
What actually separated them
Same category of misconduct. Opposite results. The dividing line was procedure and proof:
- The onus is on the employer. In every dismissal dispute the employer must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the misconduct happened. Standard Bank could not; Wits could.
- The investigation is the case. A thorough, even-handed investigation that tests the allegations and hears the accused's version builds a record an arbitrator can rely on. A one-sided or rushed one collapses under scrutiny — no matter how serious the charge sounds.
- A paper trail of complaints matters. The absence of any prior grievance counted heavily against the bank. Documented complaints, handled properly at the time, became the backbone of the university's case.
- An appeal stage strengthens procedural fairness. Offering the employee a route to challenge the finding internally was part of why the Wits process held up.
Both awards pre-date the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal (GN 3470, GG 53294, 4 September 2025), which in September 2025 replaced the old Schedule 8 of the LRA. But the principles they turn on — onus, fair procedure, and the appropriateness of the sanction — carry over to the new Code unchanged.
The takeaway for a small business
You will rarely lose a CCMA case because the misconduct wasn't serious enough. You lose because you couldn't prove it, or because the process was unfair. The most expensive mistake is treating the investigation as a formality on the way to a dismissal you've already decided on. Run it properly — gather the evidence, test it, hear the employee, document every step — and a fair dismissal will hold. Skip it, and even a genuine offence can cost you a year's salary.
CasePilot walks South African employers through each step of a defensible disciplinary process — from the notice of investigation to the charge sheet, hearing minutes and outcome letter — and assembles the full procedural trail into a CCMA-ready bundle in one click. Start a free 7-day trial — no credit card required.
This article is general information about South African labour law, not legal advice. The cases above are summarised from published sources; consult a qualified labour law practitioner for advice on your situation.