Radebe v General Public Services Sectoral Bargaining Council (JR1190/13) [2015] ZALCJHB 401 (13 November 2015) per Lagrange J.

The Labour reviewed and upheld the arbitral award that the reason for dismissal was valid and fair.  The employee unlawfully released two illegal foreigners in May 2006 without following the necessary procedures.  The employee had ordered their release without attempting any independent verification of their claims, whereas he was required to take reasonable steps to do so.  So he had not done what the Act required him to, quite apart from not following any detailed regulations or procedures.

Excerpts

[10]     Section 41 of the Immigration Act, 13 of 2002, states:

“41.   Identification

(1)   When so requested by an immigration officer or a police officer, any person shall identify himself or herself as a citizen,  permanent resident or foreigner, and if on reasonable grounds such immigration officer or police officer is not satisfied that  such person is entitled to be in the Republic, such person may be interviewed by an immigration officer or a police officer about his or her identity or status, and  such immigration officer or police officer may take such person into custody without a warrant, and shall take reasonable steps, as may be prescribed, to assist the person in verifying his or her identity or status,  and thereafter, if necessary detain him or her in terms of section 34.

(2)   Any person who assists a person contemplated in subsection (1) to evade the processes contemplated in that subsection, or interferes with such processes, shall be guilty of an offence.”

. . . . .

[12]    The arbitrator’s finding on the credibility of the applicant is borne out by a reading of the transcript. In the course of his testimony he is evasive and made allegations never put to the respondent’s witnesses.

[13]    In light of the above, the fact that the respondent failed to establish the detailed regulations or procedures to be followed by an immigration officer did not detract from the applicant’s obvious dereliction of his duty to take reasonable steps to verify the status of the detained foreigners in question before releasing them as required by the Immigration Act. There was more than sufficient basis for the arbitrator to find him guilty on the charges he faced and the outcome was not one no reasonable arbitrator could have reached.