The Standard Bank of South Africa v Tumisho Motswege and Others

The First Respondent, Tumisho Motswege, was employed by the Applicant, Standard Bank of South Africa, as a Prestige Banker since 1 September 2015. Her duties included opening and managing client accounts in strict compliance with the Bank’s verification and risk procedures. While attending to a call, she assisted a caller impersonating an existing client, Mr Ntsikelelo Biyata, and opened a transactional account, approving a personal loan of R200 000 and an overdraft of R48 200. Although she completed the initial XDS authentication step, she failed to complete the mandatory verification process via the Department of Home Affairs portal, including employment confirmation. Mr Biyata later disputed opening the account, and an investigation revealed impersonation, resulting in a loss of approximately R266 000 to the Bank. The First Respondent was dismissed for gross misconduct. At arbitration, the CCMA commissioner found the dismissal substantively unfair on the basis of inconsistent discipline compared to other employees and ordered reinstatement with retrospective compensation. The Bank applied to the Labour Court to review and set aside the arbitration award.

The arbitration award was reviewed and set aside. It was substituted with an order that the dismissal of the First Respondent was substantively fair. No order as to costs was made.

The judgment reinforces the proper application of the parity principle in South African labour law and confirms that consistency in discipline is not absolute. It affirms that employers are not obliged to repeat earlier erroneous or lenient sanctions and that arbitrators must consider all material factors, including the seriousness of misconduct, differentiation between employees, and lack of remorse. The case underscores the importance of compliance with verification procedures in the banking sector and clarifies the Labour Court’s oversight role under section 145 of the LRA.