Legal updates and opinions
News / News
Dismissal for misrepresentation when applying for a position
Falsely misrepresented credentials during the job application process
An employee may be found guilty of misconduct if an employer can prove that the employee falsely misrepresented his/her credentials during the job application process. The employer need not prove that the misrepresentation induced the employer to appoint the particular employee over all other candidates. A subsequent admission to the misrepresentation by the employee does not negate the employee’s guilt for misconduct but may mitigate the sanction imposed for the charge.
Misrepresentation
In the case of the Department of Home Affairs, the Minister of Home Affairs and Simphiwe Emanuela Ndlovu and Others (DA11/2012) [2014] ZALAC 11, the Labour Appeal Court determined the fairness of an employee’s dismissal for misrepresenting his qualifications in his curriculum vitae (“CV”). The employee had stated in his CV, among others, that he held a particular degree; the employer subsequently discovered that he had neither qualified for the degree nor had the degree been conferred upon him at the time of his appointment.
The Court held that the fact that he had falsely misrepresented his qualifications was enough to charge him with misconduct and sufficient to warrant dismissal. In this regard, the Court noted that ‘the dishonesty as contained in the CV is ultimately what underpins the substantive fairness of the first respondent’s dismissal.’ The Court added that it was, therefore, unnecessary for the employer to establish a nexus between the misrepresentation and the employee’s appointment over other candidates.
The employee argued that he had subsequently disclosed to the employer that the degree had not yet been conferred upon him and therefore the charge of gross misconduct (and his subsequent dismissal) was not warranted in light of this disclosure. The Court dismissed this argument and held that even if he had indeed made such a disclosure, the employee would still be guilty of misconduct for the initial misrepresentation.
The disclosure would however be a factor weighed up against other factors which the Court would use to determine the substantive fairness of a dismissal in the circumstances. The rationale of the Court’s finding was the egregious nature of dishonesty in the employment context given the high level of trust required in the employment relationship. On this basis, the Court held that the employee’s charge for misconduct and dismissal on this basis was fair in the circumstances.
Importance of the case
Applicants should ensure that all the information they present to a potential employer in the job application is true and correct and should be aware that they may be justifiably dismissed if the employer later discovers that they made a misrepresentation at any stage of the process. Employers should investigate the content of applicants’ CVs and not simply accept the same at face value.
Latest News
The national minimum wage act is now law
By Bradley Workman-Davies, Director On 23 November 2018, the president of the Republic of South Africa ("RSA"), Cyril Ramaphosa, assented [...]
New system to be launched to expose non-compliance with the national minimum wage act 9 of 2018
By Jacques van Wyk, Director and Chelsea Roux, Candidate Attorney On 7 March 2019, the Department of Labour ("DOL") released [...]
National Minimum Wage Bill tabled in Parliament
By Jacques van Wyk, Director and Chelsea Roux, Candidate Attorney The Portfolio Committee on Labour met in January 2019 to [...]
Directors’ liability and the competition commission’s corporate leniency policy for cartel contraventions
The Corporate Leniency Policy ("CLP") was published by the Competition Commission in 2004 and remains the principal tool employed by [...]
Trade Marks: USA and Consent Agreements
Anyone who has a commercial presence in the USA or intends entering the US market will know that the United [...]
Employee’s right to privacy
In National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and other v Rafee NO and others (2017) JOL 37705 (LC), the [...]
