- The Labour Court found that the municipality broke the rules by bringing fresh charges against an employee whose case had already been thrown out.
- The court also confirmed that keeping the employee suspended for so long was unjustified and went against the municipality’s own disciplinary rules.
- As a result, the municipality has been ordered to pay more than R749,000 in compensation, plus the employee’s legal costs.
The Labour Court has ruled against Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality, finding that it acted unlawfully when it brought fresh disciplinary charges against its senior Human Resources executive, Motlohi Tshediso Samuel Ramoshebi, after the original charges had already been dismissed.
The court found that the municipality ignored a binding ruling, dusted off old allegations it had long since dropped, and kept Ramoshebi suspended without any good reason, all of which amounted to an unfair labour practice.
Acting Judge C de Kock upheld the arbitration award in Ramoshebi’s favour, confirming that it was reasonable and well-supported by the evidence. The judge applied the standard test, asking whether the commissioner’s decision was one that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached, and made clear that a court cannot step in simply because it might have decided things differently.
First abandonment of charges
Ramoshebi, who served as General Manager for Human Resources, first came under disciplinary scrutiny following an incident in April 2022. The municipality issued a notice of its intention to suspend him, but after he put forward his side of the story, it accepted his explanation and let the matter drop.
That was the end of it, or so it seemed. No charges were pursued, and no suspension followed, a position the court later treated as a clear abandonment of those allegations.
More than 16 months later, the municipality came back to the matter. In September 2023, it issued a fresh notice of its intention to place Ramoshebi on precautionary suspension, this time citing alleged administrative failures in his HR duties. These new allegations had nothing to do with the earlier incident.
Despite all of this, when formal charges were eventually brought in November 2023, they had nothing to do with the new administrative concerns. Instead, the municipality went back to the very same April 2022 allegations it had already walked away from.
Dismissal of charges and defiance of a binding ruling
The disciplinary process got underway, but Ramoshebi’s side raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the municipality had simply taken too long.
In January 2024, the presiding officer agreed. He issued a written ruling finding the delay excessive and wholly unjustified, and ordered that the charges be dismissed and the suspension lifted with immediate effect. That ruling was final and binding under the applicable disciplinary agreement.
The municipality did not comply. It indicated that it intended to challenge the ruling through a review, but no such review was ever launched. Ramoshebi remained on suspension throughout.
Then, in February 2024, the municipality issued an entirely new charge sheet. Remarkably, this second set of charges included the very same April 2022 allegations that had already been dismissed, this time bundled together with additional allegations.
Judge De Kock found that this conduct violated the disciplinary framework and demonstrated a disregard for binding outcomes.
Arbitration findings and multiple breaches
Ramoshebi took the dispute to arbitration, arguing unfair labour practice. The arbitrator found squarely in his favour, identifying several separate and independent breaches on the municipality’s part.
On the justification for suspension, Judge De Kock recorded, “Nothing whatsoever was presented to justify the suspension under Clause 16.1 of the Disciplinary Procedure Collective Agreement.”
The court confirmed that by refusing to comply with the presiding officer’s ruling, the municipality had violated its own disciplinary agreement, which expressly makes such determinations final and binding.
On the issue of recharging, the court upheld the finding that reviving the same charges after they had been dismissed was simply not permissible and amounted to a breach of the applicable disciplinary framework.
Suspension was found invalid from the outset
There was also a further and ultimately decisive issue about the validity of the suspension itself. At the time, the municipality was under national intervention, which meant that any decision of this nature required the concurrence of a National Cabinet Representative (NCR). No such concurrence was obtained.
Acting Judge De Kock held, “The NCR concurrence requirement is not merely procedural in nature; it is jurisdictional.” He added, “The suspension is void ab initio.”
This finding stood independently and reinforced the conclusion that the suspension was unlawful.
Grounds of review rejected
In its bid to overturn the award, the municipality advanced four grounds of review. It challenged the arbitrator’s findings on waiver, took issue with how a recusal application had been handled, disputed the evaluation of the evidence, and questioned the validity of the suspension. All four grounds were rejected.
Judge De Kock emphasised, “A piecemeal approach to review is impermissible.” He made clear that the enquiry must be holistic.
The court concluded, “The Award is one that a reasonable decision maker could have reached,” and found that none of the alleged errors justified interference.
Costs and consequences for the municipality
The Labour Court dismissed the review application in its entirety and ordered the municipality to comply with the arbitration award within 14 days.
Ramoshebi walks away with compensation of R749,394.16, equivalent to five months’ remuneration, plus interest. The municipality has also been ordered to foot his legal costs.
In a strongly worded conclusion, Judge De Kock observed, “The deliberate defiance of a binding ruling, the recycling of previously abandoned and dismissed charges, and the repeated issuing of suspension notices without NCR authority reflect a sustained institutional pattern of non-compliance.”
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
