Radebe v Standard Insurance Brokers (Pty) Ltd (2025/159767) [2025] ZALCJHB 503 (31 October 2025)

Case Note

Jabulani Radebe v Standard Bank Insurance Brokers (Pty) Ltd
Case No: 2025-159767
Heard: 23 September 2025
Delivered: 31 October 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable as it addresses significant issues concerning the Protected Disclosures Act 26 of 2000 and the categories of occupational detriment in the context of unfair labour practices. The ruling provides insight into the conditions under which employees may seek interim relief to suspend disciplinary inquiries linked to allegations of protected disclosures and addresses the interpretation of urgency in such applications. Furthermore, this judgment highlights the balance of convenience, which is vital for jurisdictions that deal with workplace whistleblowers, thus offering guidelines that influence future similar applications.

Cases Cited

• Knox D'Arcy Ltd and Others v Jamieson and Others 1996 (4) SA 348 (A)
• Grieve v Denel (Pty) Ltd [2003] 4 BLLR 366 (LC)
• Engineering Council of SA & Another v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality & Another [2008] 6 BLLR 571 (T)
• Young v Coega Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd (1) [2009] 6 BLLR 597 (ECP)
• Mamodupi v Property Practitioners Regulatory Authority and Another [2023] ZALCJHB 19
• Bester v Bethge 1911 EDL 18
• Malan v Dumas 1920 CPD 357
• Collett v Priest 1931 EDL 27
• Ncongwane v Molorane 1941 OPD 125
• Stern and Ruskin NO v Appleson 1951 (3) SA 800 (W)
• Meyer NO v Netherlands Bank of SA Ltd and Another 1961 (1) SA 578 (GW)
• Steenkamp v Steenkamp 1966 (3) SA 294 (T)
• Bricktec (Pty) Ltd v Pantland 1977 (2) SA 489 (T)

Legislation Cited

• Protected Disclosures Act 26 of 2000
• Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995

Rules of Court Cited

• Rule 38 of the Labour Court Rules

HEADNOTE

Summary

This case involves an urgent application by Jabulani Radebe against Standard Bank Insurance Brokers (Pty) Ltd, where he sought to stay a disciplinary inquiry that he argued was linked to retaliatory action for making a protected disclosure under the Protected Disclosures Act. The court ultimately found that while Radebe made a prima facie case concerning the unfair labour practice, the balance of convenience favored the employer; therefore, the application to stay the inquiry was denied.

Key Issues

1. Whether the disciplinary inquiry could be categorized as an occupational detriment under the Protected Disclosures Act.
2. The urgency of the application for interim relief suspending disciplinary actions pending the outcome of arbitration for alleged unfair labour practices.
3. The balance of convenience between the applicant and the employer in determining the granting of interim relief.

Held

The Labour Court dismissed Radebe's application to halt the disciplinary inquiry, ruling that while he raised a prima facie case of unfair labour practice, the urgency required for the interim relief was not met. Furthermore, the balance of convenience favored Standard Bank, as the disciplinary process could continue without infringing upon Radebe's rights under the law, should he later win his case.

THE FACTS

Jabulani Radebe, employed by Standard Bank since November 2019, faced disciplinary charges arising from alleged misconduct related to confidential bank information being emailed to external contacts. This disciplinary action followed previous warnings issued to Radebe, including a final written warning for sending confidential data to a private email and failing to submit required expressions of interest for funding applications correctly.

Radebe contended that these actions constituted an occupational detriment due to retaliation following his protected disclosures regarding potential irregularities in the funding application processes. He suspended the disciplinary proceedings pending arbitration at the CCMA, citing claims of an unfair labour practice, but the bank refused to defer the inquiry.

THE ISSUES

The court primarily addressed the following legal questions: 1. Did Radebe demonstrate any urgency or legitimate grounds that justified the temporary suspension of disciplinary proceedings? 2. Is there a sufficient causal link between Radebe’s alleged protected disclosures and the disciplinary actions instituted by the bank? 3. Should interim relief be granted considering the balance of convenience and potential irreparable harm to Radebe versus the employer's interests?

ANALYSIS

The court examined whether Radebe's claims of unfair labour practices stemming from his protected disclosures warranted an immediate stay of the disciplinary proceedings. The criteria for granting interim relief were established as requiring the applicant to show a clear right, apprehension of irreparable harm, absence of other satisfactory remedies, and the balance of convenience favoring the applicant.

In assessing urgency, the court scrutinized the timeline of events leading to the application and found that while Radebe had responded promptly after the formal charges were communicated, he had delayed addressing his suspension as an occupational detriment until the application stage. Additionally, the court considered whether his allegations that the disciplinary actions constituted retaliatory measures were credible and if they could justify halting the inquiry.

Ultimately it was concluded that while Radebe’s claims had merit, the potential outcomes and remedies available following the internal inquiry significantly outweighed the need for immediate judicial intervention.

REMEDY

The ruling resulted in the dismissal of Radebe's application to stay the inquiry. The court emphasized that despite the prima facie findings regarding occupational detriment, the inquiry could proceed, allowing Radebe to pursue the grievance process through appropriate legal channels without suspending the disciplinary process.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The court established key legal principles regarding: - Protected disclosures must be shown to be linked directly to retaliatory actions by employers to substantiate claims under the Protected Disclosures Act. - The urgency of applications for relief is determined not only based on the potential harm but also the timeliness and manner of an applicant's actions following the awareness of such issues. - The balance of convenience is a critical factor that can determine whether interim relief will be granted or denied, considering both parties' interests in the context of labour disputes.