Lindokuhle Kunene has been awarded R229,600 by the Labour Court after Gold Reef City was found to have disciplined him for exposing recruitment irregularities, highlighting protections for whistleblowers. Picture Credit: timeout
By Aisha Zardad
Johannesburg – Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltd, trading as Gold Reef City, has been ordered by the Labour Court to pay R229,600 to an employee who was disciplined for exposing recruitment irregularities.
Acting Judge Ndivhuho Tshisevhe ruled that Lindokuhle Kunene, a Marketing Producer since 2021, suffered an occupational detriment after reporting alleged improprieties in the hiring process.
Kunene had applied for an Events Manager position advertised in September 2023 but was not shortlisted. He was told he lacked the required experience. During a grievance hearing in January 2024, Kunene presented the CV of the successful candidate, Ashleigh Scott-Roux, claiming she did not meet the advertised minimum requirements. He further alleged that senior manager Gareth Kaschule had improperly influenced the appointment.
Shortly after raising the matter, Kunene faced disciplinary charges, including alleged breaches of the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA), violating the company’s whistleblowing policy, and committing gross dishonesty regarding how he obtained the CV. He received a final written warning. Kunene argued the disciplinary action was a retaliation for whistleblowing.
The court examined whether Kunene’s disclosure qualified as a protected disclosure under the Protected Disclosures Act (PDA), whether he suffered an occupational detriment, and if a causal link existed between the disclosure and the disciplinary action.
Judge Tshisevhe found that Kunene’s grievance disclosure was indeed a protected disclosure, noting that employees need only hold a reasonable belief that an impropriety occurred; proving the correctness of the information is not required. The court highlighted inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the qualifications and experience of the appointed candidate, describing aspects of the recruitment process as “questionable” and criticizing senior management’s conduct. The judge emphasised, “The charges against the applicant were nothing but retaliation for whistleblowing.”
The employer’s argument that no occupational detriment occurred because other employees were also disciplined was rejected. The court concluded that the disciplinary charges against Kunene were directly linked to his protected disclosure.
Although Kunene initially sought 12 months’ salary amounting to R344,400, the court awarded eight months’ salary – R229,600 – finding it just and equitable under the circumstances. The company was also ordered to pay litigation-related costs, which Kunene incurred while representing himself.
The judgment underscores the importance of protecting whistleblowers and sends a clear message: employers who act against employees exposing wrongdoing can expect to be sanctioned.
