
Even bullies have rights: Costly lessons in dismissing senior management
On 09 June 2024, CCMA Commissioner, Eleanor Hambidge handed down an award in the arbitration matter between Christine Anne Lawson and Standard Bank SA Limited (GAJB 28802-23). After a thorough review of the evidence, the Commissioner found that Lawson’s dismissal was inappropriate, ordering the bank to compensate her with nearly R1.7 million.
Christine Anne Lawson, then Head of Compliance: Global Markets and Market Abuse at Standard Bank, was dismissed on 19 December 2023, following a guilty finding in a disciplinary hearing where she was charged with harassment and bullying. Lawson challenged the substantive fairness of her dismissal, feeling that the internal disciplinary findings were unjust.
Examining the Evidence
Standard Bank relied on its Ethics Policy and Harassment Policy, defining ‘improper conduct’ and ‘harassment.’ The Commissioner applied these definitions objectively in her decision.
The investigation conducted by the bank was found to be materially flawed. The investigator failed to interview two of Lawson’s subordinates and did not interview Lawson herself. This lack of comprehensive investigation significantly weakened the employer’s case, as the allegations relied heavily on subjective claims without formal grievances to substantiate them.
Additionally, the Commissioner noted the absence of grievances lodged against Lawson by her subordinates. Citing the Labour Appeal Court decision in Makuleni v. Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd, where Judge Sutherland stated that fear of backlash as a reason for not lodging grievances is unconvincing, the Commissioner rejected the reasons provided for not filing grievances. This lack of formal grievances was detrimental to the employer’s case.
The Commissioner found the testimonies of the employer’s witnesses unconvincing. The incidents from 2019, recounted by the witnesses, seemed to be revived merely to build a case against Lawson, lacking authenticity and substance. Despite consistent testimonies from the employer’s witnesses, the Commissioner emphasised that consistency does not necessarily mean credibility or reliability, and an objective assessment is required.
Ruling and Relief
Based on the totality of evidence, the Commissioner was not convinced that Lawson caused psychological and emotional distress to her subordinates or created a hostile work environment. The Commissioner found no breach of the relevant policies and concluded that dismissal was not an appropriate sanction.
Considering Lawson’s nine years of service, clean disciplinary record, exemplary performance reviews, the overall substantive unfairness of her dismissal, and her inability to secure permanent employment post-dismissal, the Commissioner awarded her nine months’ remuneration as compensation.
This case highlights the importance of a thorough and objective investigation when dealing with allegations of misconduct, including harassment. Employers must interview all relevant witnesses and the accused employee. Failure to do so, as demonstrated in this case, can significantly undermine the investigation’s integrity and the subsequent disciplinary actions.
The Commissioner pointed out that overvaluing subjective complaints without supporting managerial actions can lead to a scenario where managers cannot perform their duties effectively, fearing harassment claims. However, harassment and bullying are serious issues that require careful and balanced handling.
Employers should adopt a balanced approach when addressing harassment allegations to avoid the pitfalls identified by Commissioner Hambidge.
By David Short | Director and Ciara Pillay | Candidate Attorney