Myers v National Commissioner of the South African Police Service and Others

Ivan Myers was a Superintendent in the South African Police Service (SAPS) and Commander of the Maitland Dog Unit, with 28 years of unbroken service. While on leave in early 2007, police management reduced the food rations of police dogs, allegedly causing malnutrition. The South African Police Union raised concerns, which attracted media attention. After being excluded from management discussions and concerned about adverse publicity, Myers sent an email to the newspaper Die Burger explaining the situation and steps taken, without obtaining prior authorisation as required by SAPS Standing Order 156. He was charged with misconduct under regulations 20(f) (prejudicing the administration, discipline or efficiency of the SAPS) and alternatively 20(i) (failure to carry out a lawful instruction). He was convicted on the main charge and dismissed. Arbitration upheld the dismissal as substantively fair. The Labour Court set aside the award, but the Labour Appeal Court reinstated it. Myers appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal succeeded. The order of the Labour Appeal Court was set aside. Myers’ dismissal was declared substantively unfair. SAPS was ordered to reinstate him retrospectively to the date of dismissal, subject to a final written warning valid for 12 months. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs in the Labour Appeal Court.

The case is significant for clarifying the proper application of the Sidumo reasonableness test to sanctions in labour disputes, particularly in the public service. It confirms that even serious misconduct does not automatically justify dismissal and that arbitrators must properly weigh mitigating factors. The judgment cautions against reverting to a pre-constitutional ‘gross unreasonableness’ standard when reviewing disciplinary sanctions.