Conradie JA held in Saccawu v Irvin & Johnson Ltd [1999] 8 BLLR 741; (1999) ILJ 2302 (LAC):
‘Consistency is simply an element of disciplinary fairness . . . . Discipline must not be capricious. It is really the perception of bias inherent in selective discipline which makes it unfair. Where, however, one is faced with a large number of offending employees, the best that one can hope for is reasonable consistency. Some inconsistency is the price to be paid for flexibility, which requires the exercise of a discretion in each individual case. If a chairperson conscientiously and honestly, but incorrectly, exercises his or her discretion in a particular case in a particular way, it would not mean that there was unfairness towards the other employees. It would mean no more than that his or her assessment of the gravity of the disciplinary offence was wrong. It cannot be fair that other employees profit from that kind of wrong decision. In a case of a plurality of dismissals, a wrong decision can only be unfair if it is capricious, or induced by improper motives or, worse, by a discriminating management policy. . . . . Fairness is a value judgment. It might or might not in the circumstances be fair to reinstate the other offenders. The point is that consistency is not a rule unto itself’.
Case cited in Du Toit et al Labour Relations Law: A Comprehensive Guide 6th ed, 2015 (LexisNexis) at pages 154, 446 and 449.
Followed in Malopa v GPSSBC (JR1031/07) [2015] ZALCJHB 441 (18 December 2015) per Watt-Pringle AJ at para [17].