Plea Bargains in Workplace Discipline: Labour Appeal Court Clarifies Limits
The Labour Appeal Court (LAC) has provided important guidance on the status of plea-bargain agreements in workplace disciplinary proceedings in SAPS v Mkonto (2026), confirming that while such agreements are permissible, they are not binding on the presiding chairperson.
The employee, a South African Police Service (SAPS) sergeant, faced disciplinary charges relating to the unauthorised use and garaging of a state vehicle, as well as dishonesty in falsifying travel records. The misconduct involved approximately 799 kilometres of private use of a SAPS vehicle, contrary to internal regulations requiring written authorisation and accurate recordkeeping.
Initially pleading not guilty, the employee later entered into a plea-bargain agreement with SAPS during the disciplinary hearing. He agreed to plead guilty to all charges in exchange for a lenient sanction: a suspended dismissal and a R500 fine. However, while the chairperson accepted the guilty plea, she rejected the agreed sanction and instead imposed dismissal.
The employee challenged his dismissal at the Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council (SSSBC), where the Arbitrator found the dismissal both procedurally and substantively unfair. The arbitrator held that the chairperson was bound by the plea-bargain agreement and ordered reinstatement with back pay.
SAPS took the matter on review to the Labour Court, which upheld the arbitrator’s findings, concluding that the chairperson ought to have honoured the agreement or allowed the employee to revert to a not guilty plea.
SAPS then appealed to the LAC.
The LAC held that a disciplinary chairperson is not bound by a plea-bargain agreement between an employer and employee. Like a judge in criminal proceedings, the Chairperson retains the authority to assess whether the proposed sanction is appropriate.
However, the Court found that the Chairperson acted procedurally unfairly by rejecting only the sanction while retaining the guilty plea. Once the sanction was rejected, the entire plea agreement effectively fell away. The employee should have been given the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed afresh.
To address this gap, the Court proposed guidelines: where a Chairperson rejects a proposed sanction, parties must be informed, allowed to reconsider the agreement, and, if necessary, restart proceedings before a different chairperson.
On the merits, the Court found the dismissal substantively fair. The employee’s conduct—particularly dishonesty—undermined the trust essential to his role as a police officer. The Arbitrator had failed to properly assess this evidence.
The appeal succeeded in part. The reinstatement order was set aside. The Court substituted it with a finding that the dismissal was substantively fair but procedurally unfair, awarding the employee compensation equivalent to three months’ salary. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
This judgment clarifies that plea-bargain agreements in labour matters are subject to oversight and cannot bind disciplinary decision-makers, while emphasising the need for fair procedure when such agreements are rejected.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance on protected disclosures, employment practices, or compliance obligations, consult a qualified labour law practitioner.
© 2026 Global Business Solutions (GBS). All rights reserved.
Stay ahead of South Africa’s changing labour law
South Africa’s workplace laws are reaching The Tipping Point. Join us at #ALLU2026 – the Annual Labour Law Update for a practical update on the latest case law, legislative changes, Employment Equity developments, AI in the workplace and the issues employers need to prepare for now.
Get the insight. Understand the impact. Make better workplace decisions.
View our upcoming events: Upcoming Events and Qualifications, like #ALLU2026; B-BBEE Session 9: Sector Codes: Your Industry, Your Advantage; CLAUDE for Employment Relations (Session Options: Sept. OR Oct.); KZN Employment Equity Reporting 2026: Sector Targets, DG Reviews & Compliance; Shop Stewards: Mastering Roles & Responsibilities; and AI & the Future of Work: The CHRO Roadmap.
*All workshops are offered as customised in-house training that can be presented virtually or on-site.
Comments