Hlangana v South African Local Bargaining Council and Others [2026] ZALCCT 28

Court: Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town

Judge: Lagrange J

Date of Delivery: 20 February 2026

Factual Matrix

The applicant was successful in an interview for promotion to Head of Communications (Development Management) conducted via Skype. Months later, he faced charges of dishonesty for answering "no" when asked if he had ever been convicted of disciplinary action or was currently facing such action, despite having a prior disciplinary record (including two findings of plagiarism). The crux of his defence was that he only answered the second part of the two-part question (regarding current disciplinary proceedings) and either did not hear or did not understand the first part. He was dismissed. The arbitrator upheld the dismissal. The applicant sought review.

Reasoning for the Finding

"[15] The arbitrator considered that the question was phrased in plain language, even if it comprised two elements, and the answer clearly could have materially influenced the outcome of the interview. Given this, the arbitrator was of the view that it was more probable that he decided not to tell the whole truth about his disciplinary record." [para 15]

"[19] In summary, they may be expressed as follows. The applicant was a professional officer involved in communication work who ought to have understood the question. There was no duty on the employer to probe his answer to the question nor was it reasonably required...Given that an answer to the whole of the question would have materially influenced his candidacy it was more probable that this was the reason he did not answer fully." [para 19]

"[27] On the question of the gravity of his dishonesty, it is true that no major losses or reputational damage was suffered by the City. However, it was not inconsequential. The applicant obtained appointment to a job he would not have been considered for, had his record been known to the interview panel." [para 27]

"[30] In Head of Department of Education v Mofokeng& others, the LAC made it clear that even if material factors are overlooked by an arbitrator, those omissions must be of such magnitude that the arbitrator undertakes the wrong enquiry or arrives at an unreasonable result." [para 30]

"[31] In this case, it is just possible another arbitrator might have seen the magnitude of the applicant's dishonesty in a less serious light, but that does not mean the arbitrator's finding that it was serious enough to warrant dismissal is reviewable. It was not an untenable outcome based on the evidence before him." [para 31]

Finding/Order

1. The review application was dismissed.

2. No order as to costs.

The Court held that the arbitrator's finding that the dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair was one that a reasonable arbitrator could reach on the evidence, and the review therefore failed.