Khumalo v CCMA & Others(Labour Court, JR 2680/22, 25 June 2025)
When Standard Bank teller Nomfundo Khumalo returned from sick leave, a surprise cash check exposed a mystery bag of R20 in R1 coins in her till. Follow-up investigations revealed a pattern of anomalies: the electronic balancing records she had entered on four separate attempts did not match the physical cash counted by her supervisor. CCTV footage then showed her slipping a single 50c coin into her pocket – apparently the final tweak needed to "fix" the shortfall and close the till.
Charged with falsifying banking records, failing to report discrepancies and dishonest misappropriation of the 50 cents, Khumalo was dismissed.
At the CCMA she argued that someone else must have planted the surplus coins, but she could offer no proof. The commissioner held the dismissal substantively fair: handling cash is a position of trust; the disciplinary code treats any dishonest act, no matter how small, as potentially dismissible; and the video footage contradicted her version.
Unhappy, Khumalo asked the Labour Court to review the award. The court found no fault in the commissioner's reasoning and dismissed the application, confirming that dismissal was a reasonable sanction in the circumstances.
Why the Value of the Loss is Irrelevant
South African labour law has long recognised that dishonesty aimed at personal gain or at concealing an error destroys the very foundation of an employment relationship rooted in trust. Where cash, stock or sensitive data are involved, even an insignificant amount can justify dismissal because it signals that the employee cannot be relied on. The court echoed this principle: the price tag on the misconduct is immaterial when the issue goes to integrity.
The Lesson for Employers
Although the judgment centres on a bank teller, its implications reach any workplace where employees deal with cash, inventory, confidential data or critical records. Three themes stand out:
- Trust is priceless: Once an employee knowingly falsifies records or pockets company property, the employer is entitled to conclude that the relationship has broken down irretrievably – even if the monetary loss is minimal. A future "warning-and-monitoring" arrangement would simply demand a level of supervision incompatible with an efficient business.
- Ethical vigilance is non-negotiable in high risk roles: Tellers, cashiers, payroll clerks, stock controllers and systems administrators occupy posts that depend on absolute honesty. The judgment confirms that a single lapse, however small, can outweigh long service and previously clean records because the potential downstream risk is massive.
- Well-documented procedures win the day: Standard Bank's policies required daily balancing, immediate reporting of any differences and an unbroken audit trail. The surprise cash count, detailed balancing reports and CCTV evidence meant the employer could demonstrate both the rule and the breach – crucial when the loss itself was tiny.
Practical Pointers for Employers in similar environments
- Embed clear, zero-tolerance rules in your disciplinary code. Spell out that any misappropriation or falsification – regardless of value – may lead to dismissal, especially in positions of trust. Employees cannot later claim they "didn't realise" the seriousness of a 50c discrepancy.
- Invest in control mechanisms and record-keeping. Surprise audits, dual-control cash counts and CCTV footage not only deter misconduct but provide decisive evidence when disputes arise.
- Act promptly and preserve the chain of evidence. The bank quarantined the till, pulled the relevant footage and obtained signed statements before memories faded or records were overwritten. Courts look favourably on investigations that are swift, thorough and procedurally fair.
- Distinguish between error and dishonesty. Genuine mistakes usually surface once and are reported by the employee; dishonesty is often masked by repeated balancing attempts or cover-ups. Document how you reached that distinction.
Khumalo's case is a stark reminder that integrity has no sliding scale. For roles that hinge on honesty, the question is not how much was taken but whether the employer can ever again trust the employee with money or sensitive data. Fifty cents was all it took for the Labour Court to say "no."
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
