Author: Nicky Hardwick
A recent Labour Court ruling ordering the reinstatement of a municipal clerk dismissed over a 14-minute overtime claim serves as a powerful reminder that in labour law, fairness is often less about the amount involved and more about consistency.
At first glance, the employer’s position appeared straightforward. The employee claimed 14 minutes of overtime that the employer believed had not been worked. The matter was treated as dishonesty and dismissal followed. Many employers would instinctively support such a decision. Dishonesty, however small, undermines trust.
Yet the Court reinstated the employee.
The decisive factor was not the 14 minutes. It was the fact that on the very same day, a supervisor had claimed nine minutes of overtime under similar circumstances and was not disciplined at all.
That difference proved fatal to the employer’s case.
Employers are entitled to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to dishonesty. Our courts have repeatedly confirmed that even small amounts can justify dismissal where trust is broken. But zero tolerance must mean zero for everyone. It cannot be zero for 14 minutes and irrelevant for nine.
This is where the principle of consistency, often referred to as the parity principle, becomes critical.
Employees who commit similar misconduct must be treated similarly, unless there is a clear, rational, and defensible reason for differentiation. Where an employer disciplines one employee harshly but overlooks similar conduct by another, especially a more senior employee, the dismissal becomes vulnerable.
Consistency does not require identical outcomes in every case. There may be legitimate reasons for different sanctions, such as differing disciplinary records or materially different facts. However, where no justifiable distinction exists, the inconsistency itself renders the dismissal unfair.
This case highlights an uncomfortable truth for employers: the fairness of a dismissal is not assessed in isolation. Courts will examine how rules are applied across the organisation. If supervisors are treated differently from clerks, or if policies are enforced selectively, the integrity of the disciplinary system is undermined.
Before imposing dismissal for dishonesty, employers would do well to pause and ask a few simple questions: Have similar cases been treated the same way? Have senior staff been disciplined consistently? Can we explain any difference in treatment objectively and convincingly?
In many instances, dismissals fail not because misconduct did not occur, but because the employer applied its standards unevenly.
The lesson is not that dishonesty should be tolerated. It is that fairness demands consistency. If an organisation chooses to take a firm stance, that stance must apply across all levels.
How we can help
HRTorQue assists employers by reviewing disciplinary histories, testing for consistency risks before action is taken, and ensuring that sanctions are defensible across your business – from junior staff to supervisors. Contact our HR team today and we will ensure all standards and disciplinary actions are applied evenly and fairly throughout your organisation.