29/03/2026
Important Labour Court Reminder for Employers: Suspicion Is Not Proof
Heard: 27 August 2025
Delivered: 23 February 2026
In the case with Jane Makhubela vs Woolworths (Pty) Ltd, Acting Judge W.N. Sidzumo ruled that the giant retailer failed to prove misconduct on a balance of probabilities and upheld a decision of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) ordering the employee’s reinstatement with six months’ back pay.
A recent Labour Court judgment involving Woolworths has highlighted a critical principle in workplace discipline: suspicion alone is not sufficient grounds for dismissal.
The case involved a long-serving employee who was dismissed after CCTV footage showed what the employer considered “suspicious” behaviour in a stockroom. However, no stock loss was recorded and no evidence of concealment or theft was proven. The CCMA found the dismissal substantively unfair, and the Labour Court upheld the decision, ordering the employee’s reinstatement with six months’ back pay.
Key takeaways for employers:
✔️ Evidence matters – Suspicion, even when supported by CCTV footage, does not automatically prove misconduct.
✔️ Charges must be clear and accurate – Employers cannot rely on arguments (such as dishonesty) that were not part of the original charge.
✔️ Investigations must be thorough – Decisions to dismiss should be based on demonstrable evidence, not assumptions.
✔️ Reinstatement remains the primary remedy where a dismissal is found to be unfair.
This judgment is an important reminder that procedural and substantive fairness remain central to South African labour law. Employers must ensure that disciplinary processes are evidence-based, properly investigated, and fairly applied.
