Astle and Greyling v Safety and Security Sector Bargaining Council and Others

The applicants, Cecilia Astle and Abraham Carel Greyling, were members of the South African Police Service (SAPS). Astle was the investigating officer and Greyling the branch commander in relation to an assault case opened by a complainant, Mr Sefuthi, alleging assault and unlawful detention by SAPS members. Despite the complainant providing detailed statements and indicating the availability of CCTV footage and his ability to identify some perpetrators, Astle closed the docket as ‘undetected’ in March 2017, stating falsely that suspects were unknown. Greyling approved the closure. The complainant received no feedback and later discovered the case had been closed. Following an internal investigation marked by irregularities, including allegedly manufactured and backdated written warnings, the applicants were eventually charged in a disciplinary hearing in late 2019 and dismissed in February 2020. They referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the Safety and Security Sector Bargaining Council, where an arbitrator found the dismissals procedurally and substantively fair. The applicants then sought to review and set aside the arbitration award under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act.

The review application was dismissed and the arbitration award confirming the procedural and substantive fairness of the applicants’ dismissal was upheld.

The case affirms that fabricated or irregular disciplinary outcomes cannot found a valid double jeopardy defence, clarifies the approach to delay in disciplinary proceedings in labour law, and underscores the seriousness of investigative failures and dishonesty by SAPS members. It reinforces accountability standards within the police service and deference to reasonable arbitration awards on review.