G4S CASH SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD v NUMSA OBO MOSINYANE AND OTHERS [2026] ZALCJHB 117

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 15 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg

Name of Judge(s): Snyman AJ

Summary of Factual Matrix: 

The individual first respondents were employed by the applicant as custodians in the Cash-in-Transit industry, responsible for replenishing ATMs on behalf of banking customers. 

During January to June 2019, cash shortages totalling R1,377,690.00 occurred on ATMs attended to by the employees. The employees were charged with gross negligence for being unable to account for shortages they were responsible for. Following disciplinary hearings, all employees were dismissed.

 The arbitrator found the dismissals both substantively and procedurally unfair and ordered retrospective reinstatement with back pay. The applicant sought review of the arbitration award.

Summary of Findings:

"[41] In addition to opening addresses, the parties in casu fortunately also concluded a pre-arbitration minute on 13 November 2020, which identified the issues in dispute, at they existed at that point in time... The core issues raised in the pre-arbitration minute were that the employees disputed that they committed any misconduct in the form of gross negligence, and that they did not have responsibility to account for shortages as contended in the charges against them."

"[44] The above being the general principle applicable to the concept of a hearing de novo before an arbitrator in an unfair dismissal dispute, there is however one important rider. This rider is based on the fact that the arbitrator does not decide de novo, as if the arbitrator is a disciplinary hearing chairperson, whether the employee is guilty of any kind of misconduct the employer may wish to raise in the arbitration. The arbitrator only decides whether the reason why the employer dismissed the employee in the first instance was fair. It must follow that only evidence relating and applicable to the reason why the employer dismissed the employee in the first place, in the internal disciplinary hearing, can be presented in the arbitration despite not being presented in the disciplinary hearing."

"[49] In summary therefore, the second respondent in casu needed to determine the true reason why the employees had been dismissed by G4S. In doing so, she should not limit herself to consider only the charge as it was worded in the charge sheet. She needed to also consider the context and circumstances in which the charge was brought. It was common cause between the parties that the reason why the employees were charged was because G4S considered them, in the context of their specific duties and obligations, to be overall responsible for the cash shortages in respect of the cash that has been specifically entrusted to them to deal with as part of their specific duties."

"[63] What are then the inherent probabilities found in the actual proven facts, as a whole, that existed in casu? I believe the answer to quite straight forward. First, G4S has a specific system of checks and processes to prevent any cash shortages along a chain of custody, starting with the point of collection from SBV and ending when cash is finally returned to the premises of G4S once the Capitec ATMs have been replenished. Throughout this chain of custody different persons each have their own accountability where it comes to the cash and specific and dedicated monitoring and checking processes are applied on each occasion. It was undisputed that there was a total cash shortage in excess of R1.3 million in respect of the ATMs replenished by the employees on their specific and dedicated routes. There was absolutely no actual evidence that the cash shortages occurred in the course of the chain of custody prior to the employees taking possession of the cash and signing acceptance for it."

"[77] Whether the negligence of the employees is 'normal' (for the want of a better description) or 'gross' as contemplated by the charges in casu, is a question of fact and degree, which cannot be decided by deferring to a label. As held in Cape Gate supra: '... It is not about proving all the elements of an offence. All that is required is to prove the essential allegations which form the basis of the misconduct concerned....' In my view, the issues of fact and degree point to the existence of negligence that can only be considered to be gross. This is because the conduct of the employees shows unexplained remissness and a complete indifference to the proper and responsible discharge of their duties and to account for the cash entrusted to them to deliver."

As such the Court held that the arbitrator committed gross irregularities by: 

(i) misconstruing the nature of the charges, limiting them to a duty to count and report rather than a duty to account for cash entrusted to employees in positions of trust

(ii) applying a "reasonable doubt" approach rather than assessing inherent probabilities

(iii) failing to properly evaluate the evidence, including the 90% reduction in shortages after employees were removed from routes; (iv) incorrectly finding inconsistency without conducting proper like-for-like comparisons; and 

(v) making unsupported findings of procedural unfairness. 

The Court found the employees occupied positions of particular trust, failed to provide acceptable explanations for substantial cash shortages under their exclusive control, and their conduct constituted gross negligence warranting dismissal.

Order:

"1. The applicant's review application is granted. 

 2. The arbitration award of the second respondent, arbitrator N Moni, issued under case number GAJB 17879 – 19, dated 19 July 2022, and varied on 26 July and 18 August 2022 respectively, is reviewed and set aside.

 3. The arbitration award is substituted with an award that the dismissal of the individual first respondents by the applicant, was both substantively and procedurally fair. 

 4. There is no order as to costs."