Review of a disciplinary sanction in the SA Polices Services
Review of a disciplinary sanction in the SA Polices Services
Background:
In the matter of SA Police Services v Brigadier Bornman and One Other, case C260-22, delivered on 14 July 2025, the Labour Court had to determine whether a disciplinary sanction imposed on a police officer was reasonable and whether dismissal was the appropriate penalty.
The employee has been employed by SAP since 29 May 2022 and holds the rank of Warrant Officer. He was arrested for theft on 8 January 2022 at Woolworths Canal Walk shopping mall. His arrest followed after he walked past a pay point with a trolley loaded with bags of goods. This occurred after he entered the shop with a trolley containing empty bags and filled them with items before attempting to leave the shop. When stopped by security, he attempted to leave the scene but was arrested.
A disciplinary hearing was initiated, and he was charged with theft and bringing the SAPS into disrepute. The hearing was held in accordance with regulations 5 and 9(2)(b) of the South African Police Service Disciplinary Regulations of 2016.
The employee admitted guilt during the disciplinary hearing, and parties presented mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Additionally, the employee was a first offender. He also submitted that he suffered from bipolar disorder, supported by a medical report from a psychiatrist that confirmed his condition and stated it was probable he committed the offence while being absent-minded. In aggravation, emphasis was placed on the seriousness of the offence and the fact that the misconduct was premeditated.
The Chairperson of the disciplinary hearing imposed a sanction of suspension without pay for two months. Dissatisfied with the sanction, the SAPS approached the Labour Court under section 158(1)(h) of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995.
Labour Court
The employee or his union did not oppose the application. The SAPS argued, in essence, that the Chairperson of the disciplinary hearing found the offence to be of a serious nature and that it had damaged the relationship between the parties. The SAPS also submitted that the employee owed the Applicant a duty of good faith and that the employment relationship was founded on trust. The element of premeditation also played an important role.
The Labour Court agreed with the submissions from the SAPS and found that there was no rational link between the reasons given by the Chairperson and the actual sanction and that the decision was unreasonable and that no reasonable decision-maker would have reached the same conclusion. The court also found that the misconduct was serious and that the employee had every intention to commit theft.
The court considered relevant case law and found that the employee’s misconduct constituted a breach of the duty of every police officer to respect and uphold the law at all times. The court was subsequently satisfied that the acts of dishonesty and the employee’s attempt to remove himself from the situation justified a conclusion that the outcome was not reasonable.
The court also found that allegations of theft, fraud, and corruption are widespread, and there’s a significant public outcry against such misconduct, calling for clean governance. The suspension of two months without pay was therefore reviewed, overturned, and replaced with an order that the SAPS may dismiss the employee immediately.
Key learnings:
- Theft is a serious offence and will usually result in dismissal.
- The offence is even more serious in instances where the employee is a member of SAPS.
- The Labour Court has the power to overturn a decision in terms of section 158(1)(h) of the LRA.
