When new managers are appointed to deal with ill-discipline and improve performance in workplaces, the proverb: "a new broom sweeps clean" often proves to be true. However, these appointments are often met with resistance from subordinates. Ultimately, there is a limit on how irksome and hard the bristles of a proverbial new broom can be.
The facts of Makuleni v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Others are a case in point.
Mrs Makuleni was appointed by the Bank as the manager of one of their branches to "clean" it up after it had been neglected for several months. Under her leadership, the branch showed significant improvement and eventually ranked third nationwide for excellent performance. This did not come without a cost. Soon after, Mrs Makuleni became an "an unpopular boss" and by her own reckoning was "exacting, demanding, inclined to micro-manage and be authoritarian".
Mrs Makuleni was subjected to a disciplinary enquiry. The allegations against her were that she had created a hostile environment at the branch by communicating with subordinates in a "disrespectful, offensive and childish" manner. The Bank also alleged that she had used inappropriate and vulgar language in front of colleagues and customers and had failed to motivate her team resulting in subordinates feeling uncomfortable and worthless.
Mrs Makuleni was suspended and later dismissed for misconduct.
At the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration ("CCMA"), the Commissioner found that Mrs Makuleni had been unfairly dismissed and ordered her reinstatement with full retrospectivity. The Bank then instituted a review application of the Commissioner's decision in the Labour Court, which then set aside the award and declared that she had been fairly dismissed. Mrs Makuleni appealed the Labour Court's order in the Labour Appeal Court ("LAC") before Sutherland JA.
On appeal, Sutherland JA provided a detailed analysis of the evidence and came to the conclusion that the Commissioner's award was not reviewable. In his view, the Labour Court didn't follow the correct test for a review, which requires that the result of the award has to be so egregious that no reasonable person could reach such a decision. "The fact that a rival view can exist does not mean the commissioner's view was unreasonable", he stated. In the circumstances, the LAC held that the impropriety of Mrs Makuleni's dismissal was manifest. The LAC upheld the appeal with costs, confirmed the CCMA's award, and held that Mrs Makuleni should report for duty, with her entitlements being restored retrospectively within 120 days of the judgment.
Interestingly, in what Sutherland JA termed "the unaddressed question", he highlighted the Commissioner's view that Mrs Makuleni's personal circumstances and her 23 years of exemplary service were not properly weighed. In addition, Sutherland JA reasoned that while Mrs Makuleni's style of management was not in line with the Bank's ethos, the results achieved under her leadership were benefitted the bank. The LAC, therefore, came to the conclusion that the appropriate response would have been to send Mrs Makuleni for advanced management training. Alternatively, where her interpersonal style was unreformable, assigning her to a different role that did not involve overseeing staff should have been explored.
Key takeaways
Although it's true that new leaders often bring about significant changes, it's crucial to provide extensive and diverse training, including legal and managerial education, to ensure that employees' skills, behaviour, and performance are consistently strong and reliable throughout the organisation, especially after the initial period of change has ended.
Irrespective of whether training or a transfer was practical or not, based on the facts, this case is a reminder that employers must not be too hasty to dismiss an employee as a first port of call. Where training and corrective discipline is possible, this should be preferred. Likewise, in instances of alleged harassment or bullying in the workplace (including in the context of a manager "cleaning up" or rehabilitating a workplace), employers should not be too quick to rush to dismiss without proper investigations and training being conducted.
The LAC also highlighted the need for appropriate training of those who present cases at the CCMA, as well as on the leading of evidence and cross-examination. Perhaps if the evidence was led differently or subjected to forensic skill and assessment, and the charges drafted with more specificity, the outcome could have been different.
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.
