What happens if an employee has met the general requirements for a particular job and is appointed accordingly, but has lied about key aspects on their CV? Can an employer fairly dismiss such an employee even though the employee meets the general requirements for the particular role? The article will explore this question through the recent case of Lesedi Local Municipality v Mphele and Others.
The facts were as follows: a local municipality sought to appoint a Chief Financial Officer. Mphele was interviewed and appointed to the position accordingly. The local municipality instructed Gobodo Forensic and Investigative Accounting (Pty) Ltd to conduct a forensic investigation into Mphele's qualifications. It was found that Mphele had misrepresented his qualifications and professional memberships in his CV. A disciplinary hearing was held, Mphele was found guilty, and he was dismissed on the grounds of gross dishonesty.
The employee in the present case misrepresented the following on his CV:
Firstly, that he holds a BCom accounting degree from the University of Durban Westville, whilst he only obtained a BCom degree.
The consistent theme in Mphele’s CV is that he exaggerated, misrepresented and emphatically lied on his CV. The employee was subsequently dismissed and referred to an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA. The CCMA held that his dismissal was substantively unfair and ordered his reinstatement into his position. One of the reasons for doing so was that he had met the general requirements for the particular position. The CCMA gave the impression that meeting the general requirements for a particular job will shield an employee from an act of dishonesty in terms of their CV.
The labour court held that the conclusion arrived at by the commissioner does not align with the evidence. The issue was not whether Mphele met the requirements for the CFO position as advertised; the issue was that Mphele presented himself as the holder of certain degrees and professional memberships, which he did not have. The court held that Mphele was grossly dishonest. The commissioner's decision constitutes a decision a reasonable decision-maker could not reach. In conclusion, the court held that his dismissal was procedurally and substantively fair.
This judgment clearly shows that even if an employee meets the job requirements, lying about their qualifications and professional membership is still grounds for consequences. Job seekers are hereby cautioned to refrain from exaggerating, misrepresenting their qualifications and lying on their CVs. Doing so will result in a breakdown of the employer-employee relationship and will make continued employment intolerable. Ultimately, this may warrant a dismissal.
If you are an employer considering whether to dismiss an employee, or if you are an employee wondering if you have been fairly dismissed. The first step is to consult with expert legal practitioners.
While every reasonable effort is taken to ensure the accuracy and soundness of the contents of this publication, neither writers of articles nor the publisher will bear any responsibility for the consequences of any actions based on information or recommendations contained herein. Our material is for informational purposes.