Shop Steward Discipline: Lessons from AMCU obo Kgotlang v Employer 

 

Shop stewards play a vital role in South African workplaces as representatives of trade unions, advocating for employee rights and ensuring fair labour practices. However, their dual responsibilities – as employees and union officials – require strict adherence to workplace rules. The Labour Appeal Court judgment in Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union obo Kgotlang v Employer underscores the boundaries of shop steward protections and the consequences of persistent non-compliance with lawful instructions. 

 

In this case, Mr. Kgotlang, a part-time shop steward at a mining operation, was dismissed on two counts of misconduct: insubordination and dishonesty related to clocking procedures. He repeatedly refused instructions from supervisors to report for underground duties, insisting he required a formal “parade” or a designated “stopping team” before proceeding. Despite multiple directives from supervisors with whom he maintained cordial relations, he continued clocking in for work while performing union duties instead of his assigned tasks for nearly two years. The arbitrator found his explanations inconsistent and his witness evasive, concluding that his conduct amounted to a calculated breach of his employment obligations. Both the Labour Court and the Labour Appeal Court upheld the dismissal, affirming that the arbitrator’s decision was reasonable. 

 

The judgment reinforces several core principles in South African labour law under the Labour Relations Act (“the LRA”). Lawful and reasonable instructions from employers must be obeyed, even by shop stewards. As noted in authorities such as National Union of Public Service and Allied Workers obo Mani v National Lotteries Board, persistent refusal can constitute a fundamental breach of the employment contract. The court distinguished between protected union activities and wilful insubordination, emphasising that shop stewards are not exempt from ordinary disciplinary standards. 

 

The ruling also highlights the importance of credibility assessments in arbitration proceedings. The arbitrator properly evaluated the evidence, including the probabilities and consistency of testimonies, rather than relying solely on isolated findings. This approach aligns with established jurisprudence, such as R v Dhlumayo, which cautions appellate bodies against lightly interfering with credibility findings absent clear misdirection. 

 

For employers, the case demonstrates the value of clear, repeated communication of instructions and thorough documentation. Employers must ensure instructions are legitimate and reasonable, particularly when balancing operational needs with union rights. For shop stewards and unions, the decision serves as a reminder that union office does not grant immunity from disciplinary action. While the LRA protects freedom of association and collective bargaining, it does not shield employees from dismissal where misconduct undermines the employment relationship. 

 

Broader labour law principles further contextualise this matter. Schedule 8 of the LRA Code of Good Practice on Dismissals requires fairness in both substance and procedure. Dismissal for insubordination is typically reserved for serious or repeated offences that irreparably damage trust. In Palluci Home Depot, the Labour Appeal Court affirmed that respect and obedience are implied duties, with dismissal appropriate in cases of gross insubordination. 

 

Ultimately, the Kgotlang case illustrates that discipline must be applied consistently and fairly. Shop stewards fulfil an essential function, but they remain employees bound by their contracts. Employers and unions alike benefit from mutual respect for roles and responsibilities, fostering stable industrial relations. This judgment provides practical guidance for navigating the tensions inherent in union representation within disciplined workplaces. 

 

Chris Unwin 

Partner