Taioe v Department of Health Free State and Others (C327/2022) [2025] ZALCCT 126 (2 December 2025)

Case Note

Nontuthuzelo Thokozile Taioe v Department of Health: Free State and Others
[2025] ZALC 19
Delivered: 2 December 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable because it addresses critical issues surrounding procedural and substantive fairness in labour dismissal cases within the context of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, as amended. It examines the circumstances under which an employee can be deemed to have committed misconduct, particularly in terms of possession of state property and the ramifications of proving such misconduct. The ruling also reinforces the standards that arbitration awards must meet for them to withstand judicial scrutiny, further influencing future case law and arbitration practices in South Africa.

Cases Cited

1. AngloGold Ashanti Limited v Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union obo Dlungane and Others [2020] ZALCJHB 46
2. Continental Oil Mill (Pty) Ltd v Singh NO & others [2013] 34 ILJ 2573 (LC); [2013] ZALCJHB 30
3. Impala Platinum Ltd v Jansen and Others [2017] 4 BLLR 325 (LAC)
4. De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration and Others [2000] 21 ILJ 1051 (LAC); [2000] 9 BLLR 995 (LC)
5. Gold Fields Mining South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and others [2014] 1 BLLR 20 (LAC); (2014) 35 ILJ 943 (LAC)
6. Sidumo & another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd & others [2007] 12 BLLR 1097 (CC); (2007) 28 ILJ 2405 (CC)
7. Herholdt v Nedbank Ltd (Congress of South African Trade Unions as amicus curiae) [2013] 11 BLLR 1074 (SCA); (2013) 34 ILJ 2795 (LAC)

Legislation Cited

• Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
• Public Service Co-ordinating Bargaining Council Resolution 1/2003

Rules of Court Cited

• No specific rules of court were cited in the judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

This case concerns a review application filed by Nontuthuzelo Thokozile Taioe against the Department of Health: Free State, following her dismissal for allegedly stealing government ARVs found at her son’s residence. The Labour Court evaluated whether the arbitration award declaring her dismissal substantively fair was reasonable. The Court found that the arbitration process did not yield a justifiable basis for concluding that Taioe was in possession of stolen state property, leading to a ruling in her favour.

Key Issues

The key legal issues before the court included: - Whether the Third Respondent (arbitrator) acted reasonably in finding the dismissal substantively fair. - The onus of proof concerning allegations of theft and the interpretation of possession in terms of labour law. - The procedural fairness aspects linked to the arbitration proceedings and whether they impacted the outcomes.

Held

The court held that the Third Respondent’s decision to conclude that Taioe’s dismissal was substantively fair was unreasonable. The evidence did not substantiate that the alleged ARVs found at her son’s house were connected to her possession or theft from the Department. Thus, the court set aside the arbitration award and declared her dismissal unfair, ordering compensation equivalent to 12 months’ salary.

THE FACTS

Nontuthuzelo Taioe was employed as a professional nurse with the First Respondent, the Department of Health: Free State. On 5 July 2021, she was dismissed after a disciplinary hearing found her guilty of theft for being in possession of government ARVs discovered at her son’s residence. Taioe contended that she did not know about the medicine and that it was brought to her son’s residence by a gardener, Johannes.

The disciplinary proceedings revolved around two charges—one for theft and another for misconduct that prejudiced the department’s efficiency by unlawfully possessing state property. The arbitration award ultimately concluded Taioe's dismissal was both substantively and procedurally fair based on the evidence presented during the hearings.

THE ISSUES

The court primarily had to address: 1. Whether the arbitration award made by the Third Respondent demonstrated a reviewable irregularity. 2. Whether the evidence established that the ARVs belonged to the First Respondent and that Taioe had actual possession or control over them. 3. Whether there was sufficient correlation between the evidence presented by the First Respondent and the conclusions reached by the Third Respondent regarding Taioe's culpability.

ANALYSIS

The court scrutinized the Third Respondent's findings against established legal principles relating to possession and theft in the workplace. In interpreting what constitutes possession, it became apparent that mere location of the items does not equate to possession if one does not have control or knowledge of that property. The court emphasized that while the arbitrator allowed for interpretations of possession, the absence of direct evidence tying the ARVs to Taioe effectively undermined the rationale behind the charge of stealing from the Respondent.

Furthermore, the court noted that the Fourth Respondent’s reliance on circumstantial evidence and speculation lacked the clarity expected in cases of dismissal, making it unreasonable for the Third Respondent to affirm the disciplinary findings. The court reiterated that a dismissal should only result if a reasonable inference supports the evidence provided, echoing precedent set in similar matters and underscoring the need for clear, consistent evidence of misconduct.

REMEDY

The Labour Court ordered that the arbitration ruling of the Third Respondent be set aside. Taioe's dismissal was deemed unfair, and the First Respondent was mandated to compensate her with an amount equivalent to twelve months’ salary. This remedy underscored the court's position on maintaining fairness and procedural integrity within employment disputes, particularly those involving allegations of misconduct.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Key legal principles emerging from this case include:

1. The onus of proof lies with the employer to demonstrate that a dismissal was both substantively reasonable and procedurally fair.
2. Unlawful possession alone does not suffice to establish theft; actual possession, knowledge, and control must be demonstrated.
3. Awards must meet a standard of reasonableness; a reviewable arbitrator's finding is one that no reasonable decision-maker could arrive at, based on the presented evidence.
4. The relationship between the evidence and the conclusions drawn in disciplinary hearings must maintain a threshold of clarity, supported by unambiguous proof of misconduct.

This case serves as an essential reference for safeguarding employees' rights in dismissal processes, reinforcing that procedural integrity and substantive fairness are paramount in any employment dispute resolution.