Few workplace issues test the employment relationship more than dishonesty. Employers often ask: Does the value of what was taken matter? Should a long, clean service record save an employee? Or is dishonesty, no matter how small, always grounds for dismissal?

The Labour Court recently weighed in on these questions in JDG (Pty) Ltd t/a HiFi Corporation v Shear & Others (Case No: JR1014/18 handed down on 29 August 2025). At the centre of the case was a senior manager, two chocolates, and a petty cash tin, and the outcome was dismissal.

The Facts Behind the Case

Ms Msomi, a senior sales manager, used her employer’s petty cash to buy two chocolates while purchasing stationery for a store promotion. She submitted the till slips but never pointed out the personal purchase.

When the petty cash didn’t balance, her manager noticed the shortfall. Once confronted, Ms Msomi admitted she had used the money and offered to repay it. A disciplinary hearing followed, and she was dismissed for dishonesty.

The Arbitration Twist

At arbitration, the Commissioner found that dismissal was too harsh. He reasoned that Ms Msomi had submitted the till slips and therefore had not attempted to conceal the purchases. He further accepted her explanation that she was hungry and had not had time for lunch. Given her clean disciplinary record, the Commissioner ordered her reinstatement, albeit without back pay.

The Labour Court’s Take

• The Labour Court found that the award was reviewable. Its reasoning was clear: Using petty cash for personal benefit, without authorisation, constitutes dishonesty.
• Submitting till slips did not amount to disclosure; it was still an attempt to conceal, as the purchases were only discovered during reconciliation.
• The explanation that she was “hungry” could never justify dishonesty in the workplace.
• As a senior manager, she was expected to set an example. Her position made the breach of trust even more serious.

The Court concluded that the trust relationship had irreparably broken down, and her dismissal was substantively fair.

A Wider Lens: Dishonesty in South African Law

The HiFi Corp judgment isn’t an outlier. South African labour law has consistently treated dishonesty as a serious offence.

In De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd v CCMA (2000) 21 ILJ 1051 (LAC), the Labour Appeal Court held that dishonesty may justify dismissal even for a first offence. The Court made it clear: once trust is broken, the employment relationship may be beyond repair.

And in Sidumo & Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd & Others (2007) 28 ILJ 2405 (CC), the Constitutional Court emphasised that while dishonesty is serious, dismissal is never automatic. Each case requires a proper inquiry into fairness, proportionality, and whether the trust relationship can realistically continue.

These principles tie neatly into the HiFi Corp case: the chocolates were trivial, but the breakdown in trust was decisive.

Key Insights for Employers

• It’s not about the value: The issue is integrity, not the price tag. Two chocolates or R200 000.00, both can fracture trust.
• Position matters: Senior employees carry greater responsibility. When they cross the line, the consequences are harsher.
• Clean record ≠ safety net: A long service history or spotless record may count, but it doesn’t erase dishonesty.
• Trust is the cornerstone: Once gone, employers aren’t required to continue the relationship.

The HiFi Corp decision is a reminder that dishonesty, however small, can have significant consequences. Employers are entitled to expect integrity from their staff. Employees, in turn, should recognise that honesty is non-negotiable; it is the foundation of workplace trust.

At the end of the day, this case was not about chocolates. It was about protecting the very core of the employment relationship: trust.

Tips:

• Focus on trust, not the value of the misconduct.
• Even minor acts of dishonesty can justify dismissal if they damage the trust relationship. Employers should treat dishonesty as a serious breach of integrity, regardless of the monetary value involved.
• Hold senior employees to a higher standard.

The courts emphasise that employees in positions of authority are expected to set an example. Dishonesty by senior staff is viewed as more damaging, making dismissal more likely to be upheld as fair.

Written by Joanie Prinsloo, Dispute Resolution Official, CEO SA