In a January 2026 judgment, the Labour Appeal Court clarified the effect of a plea bargain agreement within internal workplace disciplinary process. Although such agreements are a useful and accepted feature of labour relations, they do not necessarily bind disciplinary chairpersons, and mishandling them can render a dismissal procedurally unfair.

Although more commonplace in criminal matters, plea bargain agreements in the workplace see employees pleading guilty to disciplinary charges in exchange for a more lenient sanction. This can allow the employee to escape dismissal, whilst at the same time allowing the employer to ensure that discipline takes place expeditiously. In the circumstances of this case, an employee of SAPS was charged with allegations of misconduct. After initially pleading not guilty, the employee changed his plea to guilty after the disciplinary hearing had commenced in exchange for the more lenient sanction of a suspended dismissal and a small fine rather than facing the possibility of dismissal. The chairperson was requested to endorse the plea bargain agreement in line with SAPS Disciplinary Guidelines which empower a chairperson to pronounce on a sanction following a finding of misconduct. The chairperson accepted the plea of guilt but rejected the sanction and dismissed the employee.

The Labour Appeal Court held that whilst a chairperson may reject a proposed sanction within a plea-bargain agreement, they cannot simultaneously accept the guilty plea and impose their own sanction, as this approach would effectively deny the employee their right to argue for a sanction short of dismissal. Accordingly, the rejection of any part of the plea-bargain agreement nullifies the agreement in its entirety.

Although not binding law, the Labour Appeal Court suggested the following practical guidelines for when a chairperson has reservations about the sanction proposed:

  • Inform the employer and employee of the reasons for the chairperson’s reservations in endorsing the lenient sanction;
  • Allow the employer and employee to re-negotiate the sanction to address the reservations and/or to terminate the plea bargain agreement;
  • If terminated, permit the withdrawal of the guilty plea; and
  • Proceed with the disciplinary hearing afresh before a different chairperson or continue the hearing before the same chairperson if the employee consents to this.

The court specifically noted that the approach must be flexible.

By failing to provide for safeguards, the court found that the employee’s dismissal was procedurally unfair.

This judgment serves as a reminder that while plea bargains are permissible and often efficient, employers must have a clear and fair process in place for instances where the chairperson does not agree with the proposed sanction. In line with the principle that employees and employers are entitled to terminate the employment relationship on agreed terms, employers may implement disciplinary regulations which explicitly do not require chairpersons to endorse plea bargain agreements and/or which bind chairpersons to the terms and conditions of the plea bargain agreements.

This blog is co-authored by Raaiqhah Akoo, a candidate attorney.