- The Labour Court confirmed that an approved plea and sanction agreement is final and binding on both the employee and the municipality.
- Capricorn District Municipality was not entitled to withdraw from the agreement and hold another disciplinary hearing on the same misconduct unless there were exceptional circumstances.
- The court ordered the reinstatement of former Human Resources Manager Madibane Bokang Mahlobogwane with full back pay after finding her dismissal unfair.
The Labour Court ruled that Capricorn District Municipality was bound by a plea and sanction agreement it entered into with Human Resources Manager Madibane Bokang Mahlobogwane.
The court held that the municipality acted unfairly by later withdrawing from the agreement and subjecting her to a second disciplinary hearing, which resulted in her dismissal.
Judge M Makhura found that once the plea and sanction agreement was approved by the disciplinary chairperson, it brought the disciplinary process to an end and became binding on both parties. The municipality's later decision to abandon the agreement and charge Mahlobogwane again on the same allegations was therefore unfair.
Background to the dispute
Mahlobogwane initially faced six disciplinary charges. Four of these were allegations of gross dishonesty, and two were classified as gross misconduct.
On 25 January 2022, Mahlobogwane and the municipality entered into a plea and sanction agreement under the relevant collective agreement for municipal disciplinary proceedings. Mahlobogwane pleaded guilty to one charge, received a written warning and a 10-day unpaid suspension, while the other five charges were withdrawn. The agreement allowed her to return to work on 1 February 2022.
The agreement was approved by the disciplinary chairperson, as required by the collective agreement. Just three days later, the municipality informed Mahlobogwane that it had reconsidered its position and was withdrawing from the agreement. It argued that the seriousness of the allegations, their impact on the municipality and the public interest justified this decision.
The municipality then revived the disciplinary process and held a second hearing on substantially the same allegations. This second process resulted in Mahlobogwane's dismissal in May 2023.
She challenged her dismissal at the South African Local Government Bargaining Council, arguing that the municipality could not walk away from a binding agreement and discipline her again on the same charges.
Plea agreement was binding
The bargaining council commissioner agreed with Mahlobogwane and found that the municipality had acted unfairly. The municipality then approached the Labour Court to try to overturn that finding.
Judge Makhura rejected the municipality's arguments and confirmed that the approved plea and sanction agreement had legal force and brought the matter to an end.
The court held that the chairperson's approval was not a mere formality, but formed part of a disciplinary process regulated by the collective agreement.
Judge Makhura said that once approved, the agreement brought finality to the disciplinary proceedings, subject only to remedies permitted in law.
The judge also found that the municipality's own argument supported the conclusion that it was bound by the outcome. The judgment stated that the municipality became bound by the outcome of its own disciplinary process.
The court noted that the collective agreement specifically states that a chairperson's determination is final and binding, and that employees can only be recharged for the same misconduct in circumstances permitted by law.
No exceptional circumstances for the second hearing
The court reaffirmed that employers may only reopen disciplinary proceedings in exceptional circumstances and must show that doing so would be fair.
Examples could include newly discovered evidence, fraud, corruption or a common mistake that affected the original outcome. Judge Makhura found that none of those circumstances existed in this case.
Instead, the municipality relied on the seriousness of the allegations and general references to public interest. The court found this was not enough to justify reopening a disciplinary process that had already ended.
The judge said the municipality's reliance on the seriousness of the charges and broad claims of public interest, unsupported by evidence, did not meet the fairness threshold required to reopen concluded disciplinary proceedings.
As a result, the court upheld the commissioner's finding that the second disciplinary hearing was unfair and that the dismissal that followed was also unfair.
Employee wins reinstatement
Although the commissioner found the dismissal unfair, she awarded Mahlobogwane ten months' compensation instead of reinstatement because she believed some aspects of Mahlobogwane's conduct had been unethical. Mahlobogwane challenged that part of the award.
The Labour Court agreed with her, finding that the commissioner had improperly relied on allegations that had already been withdrawn under the plea and sanction agreement.
Judge Makhura held that once the agreement was accepted as binding, the commissioner could not revisit those withdrawn allegations to deny reinstatement.
The court found there was no evidence that the employment relationship had become intolerable or that reinstatement was impractical.
Importantly, the municipality had previously agreed to a sanction short of dismissal and allowed Mahlobogwane to return to work, which undermined any claim that trust had irretrievably broken down.
The court therefore replaced the compensation award with retrospective reinstatement and ordered the municipality to pay full backpay from the date of dismissal until April 2026.
Mahlobogwane was also ordered to return to work on 11 May 2026.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
